FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T J UNE 30, 2009 T HOMAS K . KAHN CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 7- 14 17 3

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 01 33 0- CV-EAK-MAP DERRICK TYRONE SMI TH,

Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ATTORNEY G ENERAL OF TH E STATE OF FLORIDA, Res po nd en ts -Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J un e 3 0, 2 00 9) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, CARNES an d HULL, Cir cu itJu dg es .CARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg e:

Dur in g a n abo rte d ro bb ery at te m ptcab dri ve r Je ffre y

So ng er was sh otin th e ba ckan d d ie d i n the st reetin St. Pe te rs bu rg , Flo rid a. It h ap pe ne d a fte r m id ni gh t on Marc h 2 1, 1 98 3. Eig htm on th s l at er Derr ic k Tyron e Sm it h was co nv ic te d fo r So ng er’s m

ur de r an d s en te nc edto de ath. Th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt re ve rs edth at co nv ic ti on an d o rd ereda ne w tri al be cau se of t wo co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns in th e fir sttri al . Sm it h v . Sta te , 49 2 S o. 2 d 1 06 3, 1 06 7 (F la . 19 86 ); s ee Sm it h v . Sta te , 64 1 S o. 2 d 1 31 9, 1 32 0 n .1 (F la . 19 94 ) (“ Thi s C ou rt r ev ers edSm it h’s co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e athi s i ni ti al tri al be cau se (1) th e St at e el ic it edanim pr op er co m

m en t on Sm it h's ex erci se of h is rig htto rem ai n s il en t an d (2 ) th e tr ia l co urt ad m it te d a st at em en t Sm it h m ad e to a de te ct iv e aft er ex erci si ng hi s ri gh t t o re m ai n s il en t.”) . Sm it h was ag ai n c on vi ct edan d s en te nc edto de ath i n M ay 19 90 . The Fl or id a co urts affi rm edhi s s eco ndco nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e o n d ire ctap pe al . Sm ith v . Sta te , 64 1 S o. 2 d a t 1 32 3, ce rt. d en ie d, 5 13 U.S. 11 63 , 11 5 S . Ct. 1 12 9 (1 99 5) . Sm it h m ov edfor po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f un de r Fl or id a Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 .85 0, ra is in g twen ty-sev encla im s ag ai ns t h is co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e. The tri al co urt ev en tu al ly den ie d re li ef, an d the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt af firm ed . Sm ith v . Sta te , 93 1 S o. 2 d 7 90 (Fl a. 20 06 ). Sm it h t he n fi le d ape ti ti on fora writof habe as co rp us in fed eral di st ric t co urt, b utth e co urt re jecte d h is cla im s. Sm it h v . 2Sec’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., No. 8 :0 6- cv -0 13 30 -T-1 7M AP, 20 07 W L 23 02 20 7, at

*3 2– 33 (M.D. Fl a. Aug . 8, 2 00 7) . Thi s i s Sm it h’s ap pe al fro m th atde ni al of f

ed eral habe as rel ie f. It b rin gs us a carlo adof i ss ue s ar is in g fr om th ree Gi gl io cla im s (d is cu ss edin Part s II I an d IV of th is op in io n) , twel ve Brad y cla im s (P art s II I, V, andVI), an d t hr ee St ric kl an d cl ai m s (P artVII). Afte r worki ng ou r way th ro ug h a ll eig ht eencla im s, o ur co nc lu si on (PartVIII) i s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f rel ie f is du e to be affi rm edfortwel ve of t he m bu t s ix of t he Brad y

cla im s n eedm or e work a t t he
m at eri al it y

st ag e, work t ha t i s t o b e d on e b y th e d is tri ctco urt o n re m an d. I. At the 19 90 tri al , th e St at e arg ue d tha t Sm it h a ndhi s co de fen da ntDerri ck Jo hn so n h adpl an ne d t o ro b atax i driv er. The Sta te ’s evi de nc e in di cat edth at sh ortl y aft er m id ni gh t o n M arch 21 , 19 83 , on e o f th em cal le d the Yell ow Cab co m pa ny from

th e lo cal Hog le y

W og le y BBQ. Fin ge rp rin t ev id en ce co nn ect ed Sm ith t o t he ph on e atth e Hog le y W og le y . Davi d M cGru de r, th e co okon du ty, de sc rib edsee in g t wo m enwho lo ok edli ke Jo hn so n a ndSm it h l oi te rin g o ut si de . McGru de r al so tes ti fie d t ha t h e sa w Sm it h u se th e p ho ne an d t ha t wh enth e cab arri ve d, Sm it h g otin to th e b acksea t an d J oh ns on in to th e fro nt . On cr os s3ex am in at io n, h owe ve r, McGru de r be cam e co nf us edan d a dm it te d tha t h e was no t su re wh ethe r he actua ll y

saw Smith . To ex pl ai n h ow Sm it h a cqui reda gu n, t he Sta te pre se nt edth e 1 98 3 te st im on y of h is un cl e, Ro y

Co ne , who ha d d ie d b efo re the 19 90 tri al . Con e h ad te st ifi edth athe pu rch as eda bl ue d re vo lv er an d asi ng le bo x o f bu ll et s i n 1 97 2. Co ne ke ptth e g un un de r hi s m at tre ss for m an y y ears . He saw i t t he re i n J anua ry of 19 83 , bu t i t was go ne two m on th s l at er. He d idno t kno w whathapp en edto it . Sm ith d idno t l iv e atCo ne ’s ho us e dur in g t ha t t im e, bu t h e d idvi si t. To es tabl is h t ha t Sm it h was th e tr ig ge rm an , th e St at e p res en te d t he te st im on y of Ern es t Ro us e, Caro lyn Mat hi s, Pr is ci ll a Walke r, an d J am es Mat th ews . All o f th em

tes ti fie d t ha t t he y

ha d s een Sm it h wi th a rev ol ve r onth e ni gh t o f th e m

ur de r. Caro lyn Mat hi s’ si st er Re gi naals o t es ti fie d t ha t Sm it h h ad to ldhe r he was p lann in g t o “ hu st le ” so m e m on ey th atni gh t. Ma tt he ws h adhe ard Sm ith s ay a si m il ar thi ng . Rou se , who kn ew Jo hn so n, s ai d t ha t Sm it h andJo hn so n were t og ethe r onth e n ig htof t he m ur de r, an d b ot h M athi s s is te rs saw am an m at ch in g J oh ns on ’s des cri pt io n wi th Sm it h. No on e sa w Jo hn so n wi th a gu n. The Sta te als o p res en te d e y ewit ne ss tes ti m on y fro m Mel vi n J on es , who li ve d n ear t he cri m e sc en e. Jo ne s s ai d t ha t o n t he ni gh t o f th e m ur de r he ha d b een walk in g h om e, watc hi ng forpo li ce ca rs be cau se he ha d o ut st an di ng warran ts , 4whe n h e sa w th e cab arri ve . He reco gn iz edSm it h a ndJo hn so n “ fro m th e st reet ” bu t t es ti fie d t ha t h e h adne ve r ta lk edto eit he r of th em . Jo ne s s aw Sm it h g etou t o f th e cab ’s bac k s eatan d J oh ns on ge t o utof t he fro ntsea t. Sm it h h ada gu n, an d whe n the cab dri ve r ran Jo ne s s aw Sm ith s ho othi m . After wi tn es si ng th e sh oo ti ng Jo ne s hurrie d h om e, whe re h e ev en tu al ly tol d h is wife , Mel lo w Jo ne s, wh athe ha d se en . She tes ti fie d t ha t J on es ha d t ol d h er tha t n ig htth athe ha d s eena m ange t sh ot . Afte r fi rs t d en y in g i t, J on es ackno wled ge d t ha t h adhe ha d m ad e a d eal with th e St at e in vo lv in g h is 19 83 tes ti m on y . The d eal ga ve hi m len ie nc y for th e se ve nt een un rel at edfel on y ch arg es th atJo ne s h adbe enfaci ng at the ti m e o f Sm ith’s fi rs t t ria l. J on es was n ev er as ke d wh ethe r he ha d re cei ve d a ny new pr om is e o r be ne fitfro m

th e St at e in 19 90 for

hi s s eco nd(curren t) r ou ndof te st im on y . Fo r hi s p art , Sm it h’s co de fen da ntDerri ck Jo hn so n p le ad edgu il ty to s eco nd de gr ee m ur de r an d t es ti fie d fo r th e St at e. Jo hn so n t ol d the jury th athe an d S m it h ha d a gr eedto rob a cab an d h adgo ne to th e Hog le y W og le y , wher e Sm it h h ad cal le d the cab co m

pa ny. Jo hn so n d es cri be d S m it h’s g un as abl ackrev ol ve r wit h a br own ha nd le , whi chwas c on si st en t wi th Co ne ’s gu n.. J oh ns on sai d t ha t Sm it h ha d s atin th e rea r of

th e cab . The driv er h adsee n t he gu n a ndtri edto run away

5bu t Sm it h fi redat h im . Jo hn so n a ndSm it h the n ra n o ff an d s ep arat ed . On cr os sex am in at io n, i t b ecame clearth atJo hn so n h adli edto po li ce i ni ti al ly abo utth e cri m e, bu t h e st at edag ai n t ha t t he re h adne ve r be ena pl anto sh oo t an y on e. Jo hn so n a dm it te d t o o ne fel on y co nv ic ti on bu t was ne ve r qu es ti on edab ou t h is pl ea d eal with t he Sta te . 1 To re co un t wh athapp en edaft er the cri m e, th e St at e p res en te d P ris ci ll a W al ke r an d J am es Mat th ews , who were l iv in g t og ethe r atth e ti m e o f th e m ur de r. The y bo th sai d t ha t Sm it h h adco m e to th ei r ho m e th atni gh t. Walk er t es ti fie d t ha t Sm ith h adto ldhe r th athe “ sh ota crac ke r in th e b ack .” The v ic ti m , Jef frey So ng er, was whi te . Mat th ews tes ti fie d t ha t Sm it h h adsai d t ha t h e “ m ig hthave sh otso m eo ne .” The Sta te als o p res en te d M arce l DeB ul le , a Can ad ia n t ou ris t wh o de sc rib edho w Sm ith h adrob be d h im in th e ear ly aftern oo n o f Mar ch21 , abo ut twel ve ho ur s af

te r th e m ur de r. DeBu ll e te st ifi edth atSm it h h adcarr ie d abl ackor bl ue rev ol ve r, ha d e nt eredDeBu ll e’s ho te l ro om , andha d h an dl edhi s b rie fcas e. Fi ng erp rin ts fro m

th e b rie fcas e were m at ch edto Sm it h. Sm it h was co nv ic te d o f th atrob be ry

an d i s s erv in g ali fe s en te nc e fo r it .

The de fense agree d not to cross-examine J ohnson about his plea dea l in return for the 1 State not producingevidenc e that, the morningafte r the murde r, Johns on had told sever al women that he had be en involved in a shootingand that it was Smith who had fire d the fatal shot. 6The Sta te als o p res en te d p hysic al ev id en ce an d e xp erttes ti m on y li nk in g Sm ith t o t he m

ur de r. FBI Ag en t Ro be rt S ib erttes ti fie d t ha t Sm it h’s jean s p oc ke t co nt ai ne d l eadres idue co ns is te ntwith b ul le ts . The St at e p utin to ev id en ce a b ul le t frag m en t t ak enfro m

So ng er’s cl ot hi ng . Two ot he r FBI a ge nt s, As be ry an d Hav ek os t, were qu al ifi edas e xp ert s an d t es ti fie d t ha t t he bu ll etfrag m en t, acco rd in g t o l eadco m

po si ti on al an al y si s, “ m at ch ed ” b ul le ts fro m th e amm un it io n bo x R oy Con e h adpu rch as edin 19 72 an d s ti ll po ss es se d a t t he ti m e o f th e m ur de r. The Sta te us edth is ev id en ce t o a rg ue th atitwas Smith who ha d s to le n h is un cl e’s gu n a ndso m e b ul le ts th atha d c om e fro m th e b ox —b ul le ts th atwere u se d t o k il l th e v ic ti m . The g un it se lf wa s n ev er fo un d. The on ly w it ne ss forth e d efen se was Larry Mart in , a pr is on er wh o h adbe en in carc erat edwith J oh ns on . Mart intes ti fie d t ha t J oh ns on to ldhi m th atSm it h was no t t he sh oo te r, bu t h e al so co nc ed edth atJo hn so n d idno t s ay who was o r wha t Jo hn so n’s o wn ro le ha d b een . On cro ss -ex am in at io n, t he Sta te bro ug htou t tha t Marti n h adeig htfel on y

co nv ic ti on s. Init s cl os in g a rg um en t t he Sta te st res se d t he co ns is te nc ie s i n the tes ti m on y gi ve n b y it s wi tn es se s. Itpo in te d o utth e num be r of witne ss es who ha d s een Sm it h wit h agu n o n the ni gh t o f th e m ur de r an d t he factth atno ne ha d s een Jo hn so n wi th on e. The S ta te em

ph as iz edth atbo th Jo hn so n a ndJo ne s h adactua ll y see n S m it h 7sh oo t So ng er. Ref erri ng to it s b ul le t l eadan al y si s, the Sta te arg ue d t ha t i t h ad pr ov enth e b ul le t tha t k il le d S on ge r an d t ho se in th e b ox at S m it h’s u nc le ’s ho us e were “ m at eri al ly ind is ti ng ui sh ab le . They’ re the same.” The ch an ce o f th at co m po si ti on al si m il ari ty occurri ng co in ci de nt al ly “bo gg le s t he m in d.” The Sta te po in te d o utth atin ord er t o fi ndSm it h n otgu il ty the jury wou ldha ve to be li ev e Larry Marti n a nddi sb el ie ve all of t he Sta te ’s witne ss es . The de fen se ’s clo si ng arg um en t fo cu se d o n re as on ab le do ub t. Sm it h’s co un se l co nc ed edth atit“ lo ok [ed ] ve ry su sp ic io us ” fo r Sm it h, b utarg ue d t he St at e’s ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce fa il edto sh ow wh o s ho t So ng er. Co un se l s tre ss ed th atth e o nl y

two ey ewit ne ss es ag ai ns t h is cli en t, J oh ns on an d J on es , eachha d
m uc h t o g ai n fr om

th e St at e. He arg ue d t ha t J oh ns on ’s on ly goa l was to pi n t he
m ur de r onSm it h a ndth atMel vi n J on es eit he r was lying to sav e h im se lf f ro m un rel at edch arg es or wa s i nv ol ve d i n t he m ur de r hi m se lf. Init s re bu tt al arg um en t t he Sta te arg ue d t he id ea o f Jo ne s an d J oh ns on co ok in g up t he st ory

to fram e Sm it h was “ lu di cro us ” b ecau se Jo ne s an d J oh ns on di d n otev enkn ow ea ch ot he r atth e ti m e o f th e cri m e. The S ta te als o re it erat ed th atth e fi ng erp rin t ev id en ce co nn ect edSm it h t o t he ph on e u se d t o c al l t he cab , an d re m in de d t he jury th atth e b ul le t fr ag m en t fo un d o n S on ge r “ m at ch [ed ]” the

8bu ll et s fr om Sm ith’s unc le ’s ho us e. Afte r anho ur -an d- a-h al f of de li be rat io n, t he jury fou ndSm it h g ui lt y . II . Whe n re vi ewin g s ta te co urt ju dg m en ts in po st -co nv ic ti on pro ceed in gs , fed eral co urts are co ns tra in edby the Ant it erro ris m an d Eff ect iv e Death P en al ty Act o f 19 96 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4. Un de r AEDPA, we can no t g ran t fe de ral habe as rel ie f un le ss th e st at e co urt’s d eci si on was (1 ) “ co nt rary to, o r in vo lv edan un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y est ab li sh edFed eral law, as de te rm in edby the Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s; or ( 2) . . . was ba se d o n an u nr eas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts inli gh t o f th e ev id en ce p res en te d i n t he Sta te co urt pr oc eed in g.” 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) ; LeC ro y v. Se c’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., 42 1 F .3d 12 37 , 12 59 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). W e rev ie w de n ov o t he di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on ab ou t wh ethe r th e st at e co urt ac te d c on tra ry to cle arl y

est ab li sh edfed eral law, un reas on ab ly app li edfed eral law, o r m ad e an un reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f fac t. Hall v. Head , 31 0 F .3d68 3, 6 90 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). A st at e co urt’s d eci si on is “ co nt rary to” cle arl y est ab li sh edfed eral law i f it an d S up rem e Co urt p rece de ntare “ di am etric al ly diff eren t . . . op po si te . . . [o r]
m utua ll y op po se d.” W il li am s v . Tay lo r, 52 9 U.S. 3 62 , 40 5, 1 20 S. Ct. 1 49 5, 1 51 9 (2 00 0) . Puta li tt le di ffer en tl y , a st at e co urt ac ts co nt rary to cl earl y est ab li sh ed 9fed eral law i f it“ co nf ro nt s a s etof f

act s t ha t ar e m at eri al ly ind is ti ng ui sh ab le fro m a d eci si on of [ th e Supr em e] Cou rt a ndne ve rth el es s arriv es at ares ul t d iff eren t fro m [it s] pre ced en t.” Id . at 4 06 , 12 0 S . Ct. at15 19 –2 0. Si m il arl y , “ [a] st at e co urt’s d eci si on am ou nt s t o an ‘un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n’ of f

ed eral law i f itid en ti fie s t he co rrec t l eg al rul e fro m Supr em e Co urt cas e la w, bu t ap pl ie s t ha t ru le inanun reas on ab le m an ne r to th e fac ts of pe ti ti on er’s cas e.” Bre ed lo ve v. Mo or e, 27 9 F .3d95 2, 9 61 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). An un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f fed eral law i s n otsi m pl y anerro ne ou s o r in co rrec t ap pl ic at io n; itm

us t b e o bjec ti ve ly unr eas on ab le . Id.; W il li am s, 5 29 U.S. at 4 09 , 12 0 S . Ct. at15 21 . In o rd er t o m eri t AEDPA de fere nc e th e st at e co urt n eedno t ex pr es sl y id en ti fy th e rel ev an t Supr em e Co urt p rece de nt , no r m ak e a p erfe ct st at em en t o f th e ap pl ic ab le rul e o f la w, no r pr ov id e a d et ai le d o pi ni on co ve rin g each asp ectof t he pe ti ti on er’s arg um en t. Parke r v. Se c’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., 33 1 F .3d 76 4, 7 76 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ); Wrig htv. Se c’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., 27 8 F .3d12 45 , 12 54 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) . St at e co urts ’ factua l fi nd in gs are al so du e g reatde fere nc e. “ A det erm in at io n of a factua l i ss ue m ad e b y

a St at e co urt s ha ll be pre su m edto be co rrec t. The ap pl ic an t s ha ll ha ve th e b ur de n o f reb ut ti ng th e p res um pt io n o f co rrec tn es s b y

10cl ear a ndco nv in ci ng ev id en ce.” 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (e)( 1) ; LeC ro y , 42 1 F .3dat

12 59 . II I. InBrad y v. Ma ry la nd , 37 3 U.S. 8 3, 8 7, 8 3 S . Ct. 1 19 4, 1 19 6– 97 (19 63 ), th e Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t “ th e supp res si on by the pro se cu ti on of e vi de nc e fav or ab le to anaccu se d upo n re qu es t v io la te s due pro ces s wh ere the ev id en ce i s m at eri al eit he r to gu il t o r to pu ni sh m en t.” Th e Co urt l at er cl ari fie d t ha t a de fen da ntne edno t re qu es t fa vo rab le ev id en ce fr om th e St at e to be en ti tl edto it . Uni te d S ta te s v . Agu rs , 42 7 U.S. 9 7, 1 03 –0 7, 9 6 S . Ct. 2 39 2, 2 39 7– 99 (19 76 ). The re ar e two cat eg or ie s o f Bra dy vio la ti on s, ea ch with i ts own st an da rdfor de te rm in in g wh ethe r th e u nd is cl os edev id en ce i s m at eri al an d m eri ts a ne w tri al . Id . The fi rs t ca te go ry

of v io la ti on s, o fte n c al le d (andwhatwe wil l ca ll ) Gig li o cl ai m s, o ccu rs wher e th e u nd is cl os edev id en ce re ve al s t ha t t he pro se cu ti on kn owi ng ly m ad e fal se st at em en ts or i nt ro du cedor a ll owe d t ria l t es ti m on y th atit kn ew orsh ou ldha ve kn own was fa ls e. Agu rs , 42 7 U.S. at10 3– 04 , 97 S. Ct. at 23 97 –9 8; Gig li o v . Uni te d S ta te s, 4 05 U.S. 15 0, 1 53 , 92 S. Ct. 7 63 , 76 6 (1 97 2) (n ot in g t ha t t he same rul e ap pl ie s wh en“ th e St at e, al th ou gh no t s ol ic it in g fa ls e ev id en ce, al lo ws i t t o g o u nc orrect edwhenitap pe ars .”) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ; Un it edSta te s v . Alzat e, 47 F.3d11 03 , 11 10 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ) (the Gig li o 11ru le ap pl ie s t o “ expl ic itfactua l re pr es en ta ti on s b y th e p ro se cu to r ata si de ba r an d im pl ic itfactua l re pr es en ta ti on s t o t he jury” whil e que st io ni ng a wit ne ss ). Und er th is cat eg ory

of B rady vi ol at io ns th e d efen da ntis en ti tl edto a ne w tri al “ if t he re i s an y reas on ab le li ke li ho odth atth e fal se tes ti m on y co ul d h av e aff

ect edth e jud gm en t o f th e jury.” Agur s, 4 27 U.S. at 1 03 ; 9 7 S . Ct. at23 97 . The “ co ul d ha ve ” st an da rdrequi res a ne w tri al un le ss th e p ro se cu ti on pe rs ua de s t he co urt t ha t th e fal se tes ti m on y

was “ ha rm le ss be y on d areas on ab le do ub t.” Fo rdv. Hal l, 5 46 F.3 d 1 32 6, 1 33 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (qu ot in g C hapm anv. Ca li fo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 1 8, 24 , 87 S. Ct. 8 24 , 82 8 (1 96 7) ). Thi s s ta nd ardfav or s g ran ti ng rel ie f. It i s s hape d by the real iz at io n t ha t “ de li be rat e d ecep ti on of aco urt an d ju ro rs by the pr es en ta ti on of kno wn fa ls e ev id en ce i s i nc om pa ti bl e wit h ru di m en ta ry

de m an ds of jus ti ce.” Gi gl io , 40 5 U.S. at15 3, 9 2 S . Ct. at76 6 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) . The ot he r cat eg ory

of B rady vi ol at io ns oc cu rs when th e g ov ern m en t supp res se s ev id en ce tha t i s fa vo rab le to th e d efen se , alt ho ug h t he ev id en ce d oe s no t i nv ol ve fal se tes ti m on y or f al se st at em en ts by the pro se cu ti on . The d efen da nt is en ti tl edto a ne w tri al if h e es tabl is he s t ha t “ th ere i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty th at , hadth e ev id en ce b een di sc lo se d t o the de fen se , th e res ul t o f th e p ro ceed in g wou ldha ve be endi ffer en t.” Un it edSta te s v . Bag le y , 47 3 U.S. 6 67 , 68 2, 6 85 , 10 5 12S. Ct . 33 75 , 33 83 , 33 85 (19 85 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ; s ee al so Ky le s

v. Whi tl ey , 51 4 U.S. 4 19 , 43 3, 1 15 S. Ct. 1 55 5, 1 56 5 (1 99 5) . A “reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y ” o f a d iff

eren t re su ltex is ts when th e g ov ern m en t’s ev id en ti ary supp res si on s, v ie wedcu m ul at iv el y , un de rm in e co nf id en ce i n t he gu il ty verd ic t. See Kyles , 51 4 U.S. at43 4, 4 36 –3 7 n .10 , 11 5 S . Ct. at15 66 , 15 67 n.1 0. W it h b ot h t y

pe s o f Bra dy clai m s, “ [w]e eval ua te th e te nd en cy an d fo rce o f th e u nd is cl os edev id en ce i te m by item ; t he re i s n o o th er way. W e ev al ua te it s cu m ul at iv e eff

ectforpu rp os es of m at eri al it y sep arat el y .” Id . at 4 36 –3 7 n .10 , 11 5 S. Ct . at 1 56 7 n .10 ; M ah araj v . Sec’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., 43 2 F .3d12 92 , 13 10 (11 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th atth e “ ap pr op ria te m etho do lo gy [in vo lv es ] co ns id eri ng each Brad y

it em in di vi du al ly, an d o nl y

th enm ak in g ade te rm in at io n abo utth e cu m ul at iv e im

pa ct ”). Co ns id eri ng th e u nd is cl os edev id en ce cu m ul at iv el y m ean s ad di ng up th e fo rce o f itall an d wei gh in g i t ag ai ns t t he to ta li ty of th e ev id en ce tha t was in tro du cedat the tri al . Thatis th e way a co urt d eci de s i f it s co nf id en ce i n t he gu il ty verd ic t i s u nd erm in edwher e a s up pr es se d- ev id en ce ty pe of B rady

cla im is in vo lv ed , or i f th e supp res si on was h arm le ss be y on d areas on ab le do ub t wh ere a Gig li o t y pe of B rady

cla im is in vo lv ed .

13IV.

W e b eg in by addres si ng Sm it h’s Gi gl io cla im s. “ To p rev ai l o n aGig li o cl ai m , a pe ti ti on er m

us t es tabl is h t ha t (1 ) th e p ro se cu to r kn owi ng ly use d p erju red te st im on y or f ai le d t o c orrectwhathe subs eque nt ly learn edwas fa ls e te st im on y ; an d (2 ) su ch us e was m at eri al .” Fo rd , 54 6 F .3dat 1 33 1– 32 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . In atlea stso m e ci rcu m st an ces , pro se cu to ria l s ta te m en ts m ay be tre at edth e sa m e as tes ti m on y forth is pu rp os e. See Al zat e, 47 F.3dat 1 11 0. Sm it h rai se s thr ee Gi gl io cla im s. A. Sm it h c la im s t ha t p ro se cu to r Gle nnMart inli edto th e jury in h is reb ut ta l cl os in g a rg um en t dur in g S m ith’s 1 99 0 t ria l. Ma rti n s ai d: One th in g [t he de fen se ] was trying to say is t ha t s om eh ow Derric k J oh ns on an d M el vi n J on es , th e g uy hid in g b eh in d t he bu sh es , pl ot te d andpl an ne d th is to ge th er. W el l, fi rs t o f al l, the y di dn ’t eve n kno w each ot he r. Derri ck Jo hn so n d id n’t kno w who Mel vi n J on es was. Me lv in Jo ne s h eardof, b y ni ckna m e, by str eetna m e, Derri ckJo hn so n. . . . To fo ll ow t he arg um en t p ut fo rth by [the de fen se ] y ouwou ldhave to be li ev e th at. . . [th e] two o f th em were i n l eag ue fro m

th e v ery be gi nn in g, wh ic h i s t ot al ly lud ic ro us .” Sm ith a ss ert s t ha t t hi s s ta te m en t was fal se be cau se Mart in kn ew atth e ti m e h e m ad e itth atJo ne s an d J oh ns on ha d m et . It i s u nd is pu te d, h owe ve r, th atJo ne s an d Jo hn so n m etin jail aft er the m ur de r an d h adne ve r sp ok enbe fo re tha t t im e. The pr os ecu to r’s st at em en ts were ap pr op ria te in li gh t o f th e d efen se ’s con te nt io n t ha t 14Jo ne s an d J oh ns on ha d c ol lu de d o n o r be fo re the da te of t he cri m e. The y were al so accu rat e. Accurat e st at em en ts do no t v io la te th e Gig li o ru le . B. Sm it h c la im s t ha t b efo re an d dur in g h is 19 83 tri al Jo ne s an d J oh ns on ga ve fal se tes ti m on y

de nyin g t ha t t he y

ha d e ve r be enin carc erat edto ge th er. Sm it h as se rts th atat t he ti m e th es e li es oc cu rred , ina de po si ti on in lat e Sep te m be r 19 83 an d a ga in at t ria l i n No ve m be r of th aty ear, p ro se cu to r Tom Hog ankn ew th atth e two m enha d m etinjail . A m em o t ha t Ho ga n wro te to hi m se lf o n S ep te m be r 12 , 19 83 sh ows Hog ankn ew th e two ha d m et . Howev er, h e fai le d t o c orrectth ei r fal se tes ti m on y

de nyin g a ny m eet in g. An y effe ctth atHog an ’s fai lu re t o c orrect th attes ti m on y

m ay have ha d o n t he 19 83 co nv ic ti on was m oo te d wh enth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt re ve rs edit . Seek in g t o s al va ge th e cl ai m , Sm it h c on te nd s t ha t t he 19 90 tri al was affe ct edbe cau se th e p ro se cu to rs fai le d t o re ve al th atJo ne s an d J oh ns on ha d l ie d i n th e ear li er tria l. Bu t fo r th e li es at t he 19 83 tri al , Sm it h a rg ue s, h is de fen se at to rn ey s wo ul d h av e d is co ve redan d b ro ug htou t atth e 1 99 0 t ria l t he factth at Jo ne s an d J oh ns on ha d m etin jail . Not ab ly, Sm ith d oe s n otsu gg es t tha t ei th er Jo ne s o r Jo hn so n l ie d a t t he 19 90 tri al . Ins te ad , he a rg ue s tha t t he ir f al se

15te st im on y

in 19 83 cau se d h is att orne y s n otto cro ss -ex am in e Jo ne s o r Jo hn so n i n 19 90 ab ou t t he ir e arl ie r m eet in g. Sm it h ra is edth is cla im

du rin g b oth h is st at e Ru le 3.8 50 pro ceed in g a ndin hi s p et it io n fo r fed eral habe as . At the st at e-co urt Ru le 3.8 50 ev id en ti ary he ari ng , Sm ith’s at to rn ey

fro m th e 1 99 0 t ria l co nf

irmed th athe ha d p os se ss edth e tr an sc rip t of th e 1 98 3 c ro ss ex am in at io n o f Jo hn so n. He als o t es ti fie d t ha t i f he ha d kno wn 2 th atJo ne s an d J oh ns on ha d t al ke d b efo re the 19 83 tri al , he wo ul d h av e u se d t ha t fact . The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt fo un d t hi s Gi gl io cla im un subs ta nt ia te d b ecau se Sm ith “ fai le d t o s ho w th atan y of t he retria l [1 99 0] tes ti m on y was fa ls e an d t ha t th e St at e fai le d t o c orrectit .” Sm it h, 9 31 So . 2dat 7 99 –8 00 . W e m us t d eci de whe th er, u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d ), th atco nc lu si onis a reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law, as de fin edby the Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt. It Q. [D] id you have the rec ord on appe al from the f irst case when you wer e 2 prepa

ringthis case? A. Yes. Q. I s that something— that pa g e of the rec ord [pag e 1536] something that you would have ha d in evaluating your ca se? A. Yes.

. . . Q. And does that indicate that De rrick Johnson indicated he ne ver ha d a discussion with Melvin J ones about this case ? A. Yes. It say s have you ever discussed this case at all with Melvin J ones, and he say s no, Inever

have. [Tr. 5005–5007] .

16is . Smith d oe s n otcit e to an y Supr em e Co urt d eci si on th atap pl ie s Gi gl io to li es or m is st at em en ts m ad e in earl ie r tr ia ls of t he same case , andwe can no t fi ndon e. The refo re, ev enif we m ig htou rs el ve s d eci de to ex te ndGig li o t o c ov er fa ls e te st im on y at a n e arl ie r tr ia l t ha t m ay ha ve affe ct eda retria l, o urde ci si onwou ldno t ap pl y to th is cas e. See 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d )(1 ) (ref erri ng to “ fed eral law as de te rm in edby the Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s” ); Will ia m s v . Tay lo r, 52 9 U.S. 36 2, 3 81 , 12 0 S . Ct. 1 49 5, 1 50 6– 07 (20 00 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th atun de r § 22 54 (d )(1 ) co urt o f ap pe al s d eci si on s d o n otco un t as “ cl earl y est ab li sh in g [fed eral ] la w”); And ers on v. Se c’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., 46 2 F .3d13 19 , 13 27 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (“ The requi rem en ts of § 22 54 (d )(1 ), co di fy in g Tea gu e v . Lane . . . an d res pe ctforth e fi na li ty of st at e cri m in al jud gm en ts pre cl ud e u s fr om crea ti ng ne w co ns ti tu ti on al rul es of c riminal pro cedur e o n c ol la te ral rev ie w.”); see als o S ch wab v. Cr os by, 451 F.3d13 08 , 13 23 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th e rel at io ns hi p o f § 22 54 (d )(1 ) to th e Teag ue no n- ret ro act iv it y do ctrin e). InAnd ers on we no te d t ha t al th ou gh th e Bra dy pri nc ip le s m ig htsupp ort i t, th e Supr em e Co urt h adne ve r ex pr es sl y ex te nd edBrad y

to fal se tes ti m on y

be fo re th e g ran d ju ry . 46 2 F .3dat 1 32 6– 27 . Accor di ng ly, we co nc lu de d tha t t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on to de ny reli ef was no t u nr eas on ab le ina cas e whe re l ie s were t ol d t o the grandjury. Id. at13 27 –2 8. Th e sa m e ap pl ie s t o fa ls e te st im on y 17gi ve n i n e arl ie r tr ia ls . The Supr em e Co urt h as ne ve r ex te nd edGig li o t o t ha t

si tu at io n a ndwe can no t s ay th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on no t t o d o s o is un reas on ab le . C. Sm it h c la im s t ha t t he Sta te all owe d M el vi n J on es to li e atth e 1 99 0 t ria l ab ou t wh atth e St at e h adgi ve n h im in ex ch an ge forhi s t es ti m on y at t he 19 83 tri al . Dur in g t he 19 90 tri al , Jo ne s t es ti fie d t ha t wh enhe fir stcam e fo rwardto tel l t he po li ce wh athe saw o n M arch 21 , 19 83 , he h adbe enfaci ng “ se ve nt een or ei gh te en ” fel on y

ch arg es . Then cam e th is cro ss -ex am in at io n: Q. Didy ouev er d o t im e o n a ll th os e fel on y ch arg es ? A. Yes, I h ad . Q. How m

uc h t im e d idy ouge t? A. I di d t hr ee years o n i t. Q. Tota l thr ee years? A. Yes. It wo ul d h av e b eenm or e acc ur at e fo r Jo ne s t o s ay th atin Decem

be r 19 83 he ha d re cei ve d ath ree- y ear s us pe nd edsen te nc e p lu s t wo years o f pr ob at io n, b uthe en de d up s erv in g t he th ree- y ear s en te nc e an y way . The re as on is th atin 19 85 he 3 Precisely

how longJ ones wa s actua lly behind bar s on the three -year sentenc e is unclea

r. 3 The de fense counsel a sked him, but the prosec ution objected. Af ter a bench c onfer ence , the judg e ruled that the que stion would be allowed, but the de fense counsel moved on w ithout re-askingit. 18ran afo ul of t he law ag ai n (wh ic h i s h ard ly sur pr is in g g iv enth e num

be r of fel on y ch arg es he ha d b een faci ng when he cam e fo rwardin co nn ect io n wi th th is cas e). Sm ith a rg ue s t ha t J on es sh ou ldha ve tes ti fie d t o t ho se de ta il s. The Flo rid a tr ia l co urt t ha t ru le d o n S m it h’s Ru le 3.8 50 m ot io n d eci de d t ha t th is cla im was i ns uf

fic ie nt ly ple ad ed . Flo rid a v . Sm it h, 8 3- 02 65 3 a t 8 –9 (Fl a. Ci r. Ct . Jan . 3, 2 00 2) (“ Defen da ntdi d n otsu ffi ci en tl y all eg e wha t was fal se ab ou t M r. Jo ne s’ tes ti m on y

reg ard in g t he de al he go t fo r te st ifyin g a ga in stDefen dant .”). Sm ith’s 2 05 -p ag e am en de d p le ad in g s eek in g re li ef fro m th e st at e co urt d idno t m en ti on Jo ne s’ tes ti m on y ab ou t h is de al with t he Sta te or abo utth e le ng th of t im e he was s en te nc edto or h adserve d. Th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt ag reedth atth is cl ai m ha d b een in su ffi ci en tl y

rai se d a t the tri al co urt l ev el . Sm it h, 9 31 So . 2dat 80 0 (“ Fi rs t, as th e ci rcu itco urt co rrec tl y fou nd , th e cl ai m

was i ns uf

fic ie nt ly pl ed .”). The f

ed eral di st ric t co urt fo un d n o re as on to di sturb the st at e p ro cedur al ba r. Sm it h, 2 00 7 WL 23 02 20 7, at*1 1. Th e St at e h as co ns is te nt ly pres se d i ts pr oc edur al bar de fen se to th is cla im . Ord in ari ly a sta te pro cedur al ba r is ho no redin fed eral habe as . Col em anv. Tho m ps on , 50 1 U.S. 7 22 , 72 9– 30 , 11 1 S . Ct. 2 54 6, 2 55 4 (1 99 1) (“ The [ad equa te an d i nd ep en de ntst at e g ro un d] do ctrin e ap pl ie s t o b ar fe de ral habe as whena st at e co urt d ecl in edto ad dr es s a p ris on er’s fed eral cla im s b ecau se th e p ris on er h ad 19fai le d t o m eeta st at e p ro cedur al requi rem en t.”) . There are t wo ways th ata

pr oc edur al bar m ay

be li fte d. Se e Mi ze v . Hall , 53 2 F .3d11 84 , 11 90 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Fir st , def

au lt edcla im s ca n b e rev ie wedif t he pe ti ti on er s ho ws ad equa te cau se ex cu si ng th e d efau ltan d a ctua l p reju di ce ar is in g fr om it . See Dretke v. Hale y , 54 1 U.S. 3 86 , 39 2–93 , 12 4 S . Ct. 1 84 7, 1 85 2 (2 00 4) . Seco nd , a pe ti ti on er can av oi d ast at e p ro cedur al ba r if he est ab li sh es th atap pl ic at io n o f th e b ar wo ul d cau se “ a fu nd am en ta l m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e.” Mc Cl es ke y v. Zan t, 4 99 U.S. 46 7, 49 4, 1 11 S. Ct. 1 45 4, 1 47 0 (1 99 1) . Smit h d oe s n otco nt en d t ha t h e h as est ab li sh ed ei th er the “ cau se an d p reju di ce” o r th e “ fund am en ta l m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e” ex cep ti on . Accor di ng ly, fed eral habe as rev ie w of t hi s cl ai m is ba rred . See Herri ng v. Se c’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., 39 7 F .3d13 38 , 13 53 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) ( a pe ti ti on er’s fai lu re t o ad dr es s a p ro cedur al bar ho ld in g wai ve s an y arg um en t ag ai ns t i t). Insu m m ary, we rejectall of S m it h’s Gi gl io cla im s. Itfol lo ws t ha t t he re i s no ne edto co nduc t a m at eri al it y in qu iry for an y

of t he all eg ed ly fals e te st im on y . The same cann otbe sai d fo r al l o f th e Bra dy clai m s. V. Sm it h b rin gs us twel ve di st in ctBrady cla im s. Ou r or ga ni zat io na l p la n i s t o fir stad dr es s t ho se th atfai l t o re ach th e m at eri al it y st ag e ei th er b ecau se th ey are 20pr oc edur al ly barre d o r be cau se th ey fai l o n t he supp res si onele m en t. Se e Stric kl er v. Gre en e, 52 7 U.S. 2 63 , 28 1– 82 , 11 9 S . Ct. 1 93 6, 1 94 8 (1 99 9) (no ti ng th atBrad y vi ol at io ns requi re the ev id en ce t o h av e b een supp res se d b y th e St at e, be fav or ab le to th e d efen se , andbe cu m ul at iv el y m at eri al ). Then we wil l ad dr es s t he Brad y cl ai m s t ha t m ak e itto th e m at eri al it y an al y si s. A. The re ar e si x B rady

cla im s t ha t ar e p ro cedur al ly barre d o r are ba se d o n ev id en ce tha t was no t ac tu al ly sup pr es se d. 1. Sm it h c la im s t ha t t he Sta te fai le d t o d is cl os e im pe ach m en t i nf

orm at io n ab ou t M el lo w andMel vi n J on es . Two p ol ic e rep orts in di cat e th atth e Jo ne s’ ho us e was can va ss edby offi cers twi ce o n t he ni gh t o f th e m ur de r, on ce at1: 00 a.m . andag ai n a ro un d 8 :3 0 a .m . He char act eri zes th e fi rs t re po rt a s i nd ic at in g th ata bl ackm al e n am ed“ Mel ow” Jo ne s an swe redth e d oo r at1: 00 a.m . bu t h ad no t s een or h eardan yth in g. He cha ract eri zes th e se co ndrep ort as in di cat in g t ha t 4

Actually , what the f

irst report state s is that, “The followingneighborhood wa s then 4 done by this writer,” which is followed by a list of names a

nd addre sses, most of which have afte r them the wor d “NEGATIVE.” O ne of those na mes and a ddresse s is that of “Melow J ones,” a nd it is followed by

the word “NEGATIVE.”

21Mel lo w Jo ne s, thi s t im e id en ti fie d a s a b la ckfem al e, an swe redth e d oo r aro un d

8: 30 a.m . bu t h adno in fo rm at io n abo utth e in ci de nt . 5 Sm it h a rg ue s t ha t t he sec on d p ol ic e rep ort, wh ic h a ll eg ed ly w as no t di sc lo se d, co ul d h av e b een us edto im pe ach Mel vi n a ndMel lo w Jo ne s. Acco rd in g to Sm it h, attri al th e p ro se cu ti on us edMel lo w Jo ne s t o c on firm th athe r hu sb an d Mel vi n a ctua ll y

ha d s een th e sh oo ti ng . It b ut tre ss edhe r cre di bi li ty by su gg es ti ng th atat t he ti m e o f th e fi rs t n ei gh bo rh oo d c an va ss Mel lo w hadno t yet he ardhe r hu sb an d’s s to ry , whi ch ex pl ai ne d wh y sh e d idno t p as s i t o n t o t he po li ce at1: 00 a.m . Thatex pl an at io n wo ul d n otap pl y to he r fai lu re t o d o s o wh enqu es ti on edat 8: 30 a.m . Sm it h a ls o arg ue s t ha t an un di sc lo se d 1 98 8 i nt erv ie w of M el lo w Jo ne s was im pe ach m en t ev id en ce b ecau se itco nt rad ic te d h er 1 98 3 s ta te m en ts . The p ol ic e rep ort fr om

th e se co ndcan va ss an d M el lo w Jo ne s’ 19 88 in te rv ie w, th eref or e, m ig htha ve be enus efu l ag ai ns t t he Jo ne se s. The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t b ot h o f th es e Me ll ow J on es Brad y cl ai m s wer e p ro cedur al ly barre d b ecau se th ey were n otrai se d dur in g t he co ll at eral pr oc eed in gs in th e Fl or id a tr ia l co urt. Sm it h, 9 31 So . 2dat 7 98 . (“ [T]his cla im Actually , what the se cond re port states is that, “On 3/21/83, at appr ox imately 0830 5 hours writer

conducte d a neighborhood of the f ollowing loca

tions with negative results.” One of the ten listed names a

nd addre sses is that of “Mellow Jones.”

22was no t ra is edbe lo w andth us is no t p res erv edforou r rev ie w.”). Und er Co le m an ,

th atis anad equa te an d i nd ep en de ntst at e g ro un d fo r de ci si on , m ean in g t ha t fe de ral co urts m us t h on oritun le ss on e o f th e ex cep ti on s ap pl y . See 5 01 U.S. at 7 29 –3 0, 11 1 S . Ct. at25 54 . Sm it h d oe s n otco nt en d t ha t h e can sh ow ad equa te cau se forhi s d efau ltan d actua l p reju di ce fr om

it , no r do es he arg ue th athi s ca se in vo lv es a fu nd am en ta l
m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e. See M iz e, 53 2 F .3dat 1 19 0 (i de nt ifyin g t he two rou te s aro un d ast at e p ro cedur al ba r). In st ead , Sm it h’s b rie fs ig no re the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt’s ru li ng an d re it erat e h is arg um en t o n t he m eri ts of the cla im s. Th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s ru li ng st an ds . Herrin g, 3 97 F.3dat 1 35 3 (f ai lu re t o a dd res s a pr oc edur al bar in th e in it ia l b rie f to th is Co urt wai ve s an y arg um en t ag ai ns t i t). 6 The Brady

cla im s i nv ol vi ng th e rep orts fro m th e n ei gh bo rh oo d c an va ss es an d At oral a rgument we a sked Smith’s counsel to respond to the F lorida Supreme Court’ s 6 proce dural ba

r holding . He c ited Way

v. State, 760 So. 2d 903, 915 (Fla. 2000) , for the proposition that addressingan issue in a c losing a rgument— as Smith di d befor e the state trial court duringthe collater al proc eeding — sufficie ntly

raises the issue under F lorida law. H oweve r, the Way decision did not hold that. W ay held that the fa ilure of a

n attorney to tell the trial court duringhis argument that he wa nted ce rtain cla ims addressed c umulatively waived thearg

ument that they should have be en. I d. That does not mea n bring ing up a

claim for the first time during argument will un-do a wa iver that oc curr ed whe n a cla im was omitted from the plea dings a nd briefs. We know f

rom the F lorida Supreme Court’ s specific rulingin this case that the be lated argument of the c laim did not cure the e arlier waiver . In any event, Smith’s oral argument comes too late. Mc Fa rlin v. Conseco Servs., L L C, 381 F.3d 1251, 1262–63 ( 11th Cir. 2004) (“A pa rty is not allowed to raise a

t oral ar gument a new issue f

or re view.”) ; see a lso Sol antic, L L C v. Cit y of Neptune B eac h, 410 F.3d 1250, 1256 n.6 (11th Cir. 2005) (a

n argument raised f

or the fir st tim e duringoral a rgument comes too late) . 23Mel lo w Jo ne s’ 19 88 in te rv ie w do no t m ak e itto th e m at eri al it y an al y si s an d t he ev id en ce wi ll no t b e co ns id eredin Sm ith’s fa vo r atth atst ag e. 2. Sm it h c la im s t ha t t he Sta te fai le d t o d is cl os e a rep ort s ho win g t ha t Derric k Jo hn so n h adfai le d a19 83 po lygrap h e xa m in at io n abo utth e cri m e an d tha t h e m ad e a s ta te m en t dur in g i t t ha t wo ul d h av e b een us efu l t o t he de fen se . Duri ng th e ex am in at io n J oh ns on ex pl ai ne d t ha t h e h adin it ia ll y li edto po li ce ab ou t b ei ng with Sm ith o n the ni gh t o f th e m ur de r be cau se he was a frai d o f im pl ic at in g h im se lf. Sm ith a rg ue s t ha t s ta te m en t s ho ul d h av e b een di sc lo se d b ecau se itsh owe d h e h ad a m ot iv e to li e an d h adbe enwil li ng to do so to m in im iz e h is own cu lp ab il it y . The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt fo un d t ha t b ecau se th is arg um en t was no t m ad e in Sm it h’s p os t-c on vi ct io n m ot io n t o t he st at e tr ia l co urt, “ [th at ] co urt d idno t ad dr es s i t, an d i t i s n otpre se rv ed .” Sm it h, 9 31 So . 2dat 7 99 n.5 ; s ee al so Co le m an , 50 1 U.S. at72 9– 30 , 11 1 S . Ct. at25 54 . Agai n, Sm it h i gn or es th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s ru li ng on th is is su e an d m ak es no arg um en t fo r av oi di ng pr oc edur al bar ba se d o n t he “ cau se an d p reju di ce” t es t o r th e “ fu nd am en ta l
m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e” l in e o f cas es . See M iz e, 53 2 F .3dat 1 19 0; Herri ng , 39 7 F.3 d a t 1 35 3. Ag ai n, t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt’s p ro cedur al bar ru li ng st an ds . The Brady

cla im ab ou t t he po lygrap h e xa m in at io n andDerri ckJo hn so n’s

24st at em en t dur in g i t d oe s n otm ak e itto th e m at eri al ity an al y si s, an d t he ev id en ce wil l n otbe co ns id eredin Sm ith’s fa vo r atth atst ag e. 3. Sm it h c la im s t ha t t he Sta te supp res se d e vi de nc e th atco ul d h av e b een us ed to im pe ach Pri sc il laW al ke r. She tes ti fie d a t t he 19 90 tri al th atsh e h adsee n Sm ith a t h er h ou se du rin g t he ev en in g s ho rtl y be fo re the m

ur de r an d t ha t wh il e Sm ith was th ere, h er b oyfrien d J am es Mat th ews sh owe d h er Sm it h’s g un . W al ke r al so tes ti fie d t ha t Sm it h re tu rn edto he r ho us e b etween mid ni gh t an d 1 :0 0 a.m .— the sh oo ti ng oc curredaro un d 1 2: 45 a.m .— an d t ol d h er tha t h e h ad“ sh ota crac ke r in th e b ack ” b ecau se th e v ic ti m , a cab dri ve r, ha d n otwant edto gi ve up hi s m on ey . On cr os s ex am in at io n, Walk er s ta te d t ha t s he di d n otkn ow Sm it h v ery well an d s he de ni eddi sl ik in g h im . Sm it h a ss ert s t ha t atth e ti m e o f th e ret ria l i n 1 99 0 P ris ci ll a Walke r ha d cri m in al welf

are f rau d c harg es pe nd in g a ga in sthe r un de r anali as an d t ha t s he ha d al read y be ench arg edwith o bs tru ct io n o f jus ti ce an d t hr ee p ro ba ti on vi ol at io ns be twee n 1 98 8 a nd19 90 . He al so ass ert s t ha t Walk er’s b on d was reduc edaft er s he te st ifi edag ai ns t h im

in 19 90 an d t ha t s he lat er re cei ve d p ro ba ti on . Non e o f th at ev id en ce was di sc lo se d t o S m it h.

25The Sta te co nt en ds th atan y cla im s ab ou t n on di sc lo su res rel at in g t o P ris ci ll a W al ke r are pro cedur al ly barre d b ecau se Sm it h d idno t ev enm en ti on he r in hi s in it ia l b rie f to th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt dur in g h is ap pe al fro m th e d en ia l o f co ll at eral rel ie f. The Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt d idno t m en ti on an y Brad y is su e in vo lv in g P ris ci ll a Walke r in it s o pi ni on . See Sm it h, 9 31 So . 2d79 0. Th e St at e arg ue s t ha t u nd er Fl or id a la w, th e fac t t ha t Sm it h t al ke d abo utPri sc il laW al ke r in hi s re pl y bri ef t o t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt i s n oten ou gh to av oi d wai ve r. Gen. Mo rtg ag e Ass oc s., In c. v. Ca m po lo Mo rtg ag e & Re al ty Corp ., 67 8 S o. 2 d 4 31 , 43 1 (Fl a. 3dDCA 19 96 ) (“ The factth atth is is su e was rai se d fo r th e fi rs t t im e in th e rep ly brie f al on e p recl ud es ou r co ns id erat io n o f th e m at te r.”). Inres po ns e, Sm ith a rg ue s t ha t t he Sta te sh ou ldno t b e al lo wedto san db ag hi m by rais in g t he pro cedur al de fau ltde fen se forth e fi rs t t im e o n app eal , alt ho ug h he do es no t s ug ge stth athe co ul d h av e res po nd edan y di ffer en tl y

ha d h e fac editin th e d is tri ctco urt. Sm it h d oe s n otde ny tha t h e fai le d t o e ve n m en ti on Pri sc il la W al ke r in hi s i ni ti al bri ef t o t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt, n ordo es he co nt en d t ha t he can esc ap e th e p ro cedur al ba r th ro ug h ash owi ng of c au se an d p reju di ce o r a fu nd am en ta l m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e. In st ead , Sm it h’s o nl y arg um en t i s t ha t t he St at e h as waiv edit s p ro cedur al ba r de fen se as t o thi s cl ai m by notass ert in g i t i n th e d is tri ctco urt. 26Afte r th e en act m en t o f AEDPA, whet he r th e St at e’s fai lu re t o ra is e a

pr oc edur al bar de fen se waiv es itde pe nd s o n t he ba si s o f th e d efen se . If th e pr oc edur al bar de fen se ari se s fr om th e p et it io ne r’s fai lu re t o ra is e th e cl ai m at a ll an d t he reb y

ex haus t s ta te rem ed ie s, tha t d efen se can no t b e wai ve d i m pl ic it ly by th e St at e’s fai lu re t o a ss ertit . 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( b) (3 ) (“ A Sta te sh al l n otbe de em edto have waiv edth e ex haus ti on requi rem en t . . . un le ss th e St at e, th ro ug h co un se l, ex pr es sl y

waiv es th e requi rem en t.”) ; Mc Nairv. Ca m pb el l, 4 16 F.3d 12 91 , 13 06 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). If, on th e o th er h an d, t he pe ti ti on er d idrai se th e cl ai m in th e st at e co urts bu t n otat t he ti m e o r in th e m an ne r requi redby stat e pr oc edur al rul es , th e res ul ti ng pro cedur al ba r de fen se m ay be waiv edby the St at e’s fai lu re t o a ss ertit . See Mc Nair , 41 6 F .3dat 1 30 6 (apro cedur al ba r th at ari se s fr om

th e fai lu re t o b rin g acla im in st at e co urt “ is to be di st in gu is he d fr om on e th atari se s, n otbe cau se of afai lu re t o e xh au st , bu t ra th er b ecau se th e st at e co urt wi ll no t h ear t he cla im du e to a st at e p ro cedur al bar”); see als o § 22 54 (b )(3 ) (b y im pl ic at io n) . Unfo rtu na te ly for Sm it h, thi s p ro cedur al ba r de fen se ari se s fr om hi s fa il ur e to rai se th is parti cu lar Bra dy clai m in th e st at e co urts . Noton ly didSm it h fa il to rai se th is Brad y cla im in th e st at e tr ia l co urt du rin g t he co ll at eral pro ceed in g, h e d idno t ev enm en ti on W al ke r’s na m e in hi s in it ia l b rie f to th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt. His rep ly brie f in th atco urt d idtal k 27ab ou t Walk er, b utno t i n t he arg um en t s ect io n. In st ead , Sm ith m en ti on edhe r in a

se ct io n t it le d “ Rep ly to Ap pe ll ee’s St at em en t o f th e Cas e an d F act s.” Inth at se ct io n, h e co m

pl ai ne d t ha t “ le ft o utof t he Sta te ’s bri ef i s t he ful l Pr is ci ll a Walke r st ory .” He th ento ldhi s v ers io n o f th e Walke r st ory an d wh il e d oi ng so sai d t ha t th e tr ia l co urt, dur in g t he he ari ng on hi s m ot io n fo r co ll at eral rel ie f, ha d re fu se d t o pe rm ithi m

to in tro du ce Br ady

ev id en ce re ga rd in g Walk er. Bu t t he Brad y ev id en ce re la ti ng to Pri sc il laW al ke r was no t the ev id en ce thi s cl ai m is ba se d o n. He d idno t ar gu e to th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt t ha t Walk er h adch arg es pe nd in g a ga in sthe r whe n s he tes ti fie d a t the 19 90 tri al , no r di d h e arg ue th atsh e ha d d eri ve d abe ne fitfro m th e St at e in return fo r he r te st im on y . He ne ve r sa id
an yth in g a t al l ab ou t t ha t al le ge d e vi de nc e. 7 The lo ng an d s ho rt o f itis th atSm ith n ev er p res en te d t o t he st at e co urts an y cl ai m forrel ie f in vo lv in g t hi s al le ge dl y withh el d e vi de nc e ab ou t Pr is ci ll a Walke r. Non e atall . In o th er wo rd s, Sm it h d idno t l os e an op po rtu ni ty to h av e th is Brady cl ai m de ci de d i n s ta te co urt b ecau se he rai se d i t i n a n u nt im el y or p ro cedur al ly de fect iv e way , as b y

ass ert in g i t i n h is rep ly brie f in st eadof h is in it ia l b rie f. See McNa ir, 4 16 F.3dat 1 30 6. In st ead , Sm it h l os t t he op po rtu ni ty to h av e th e st at e
The Priscilla Walker B rady claim that Smith di d raise in his re ply brief is discussed 7 later in this opinion. See infra pa g e 44. 28co urts de ci de th is cla im be cau se he ne ve r rai se d i t as a cl ai m an ywhe re i n t he st at e co urts . He nev er g av e th e st at e co urts anop po rtu ni ty to ru le onth is cla im , eve n be la te dl y . He th ereb y

fai le d t o e xh au sthi s s ta te rem ed ie s wi th inth e m ean in g o f §2 25 4( b) (3 ). Cf. id . (ob se rv in g tha t b ecau se th e fed eral is su es mix edin to pe ti ti on er’s s ta te law cl ai m s wer e n eed le s i n ahay st ackth atdi d n otin vi te th e st at e co urt t o ru le on th em , th ere was a fai lu re t o e xh au sttype o f pr oc edur al ba r). It f ol lo ws t ha t t he factth e St at e d idno t ra is e in th e d is tri ctco urt Sm it h’s fai lu re t o ra is e th is Brad y cla im in th e st at e co urts do es no t wai ve th e d efen se . Id. at13 05 (ho ld in g t ha t the Sta te ’s fai lu re t o p oi ntou t t o the di st ric t co urt t he pe ti ti on er’s o m is si on s i n s ta te co urt d idno t wai ve it s p ro cedur al ba r arg um en t at th e co urt o f ap pe al s) ; s ee al so Gon zal es v. Mc Kun e, 27 9 F .3d92 2, 9 24 (10 th Cir . 20 02 ) (en ba nc ) (ap pl y in g apro cedur al ba r ari si ng fro m th e p et it io ne r’s fai lu re t o ex haus t h is fed eral cla im

in th e st at e co urts ev enth ou gh th e St at e d idno t as se rt th atde fen se un ti l en ba nc ora l ar gu m en t). Bec au se th e p ro cedur al ba r de fen se is no t wai ve d a ndth e fac tu al ba si s fo r it is no t i n d is pu te , th e o nl y way Sm it h m ig htav oi d t he ba r is eit he r th ro ug h t he cau se an d p reju di ce o r th e fu nd am en ta l m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e ex cep ti on . Miz e, 53 2 F .3dat 1 19 0. He d oe s n otarg ue eit he r on e. Acco rd in gl y Sm it h’s Br ady cl ai m s b as edon th e u nd is cl os edev id en ce ab ou t Walk er’s i nc en ti ve s t o t es ti fy for 29th e St at e d o n otm ak e itto th e m at eri al it y an al y si s, an d t he ev id en ce wi ll no t b e co ns id eredin Sm ith’s fa vo r atth atst ag e. 4. Sm it h c la im s t ha t t he Sta te fai le d t o d is cl os e a p ol ic e rep ort i nd ic at in g t ha t Mel vi n J on es ha d t ak ena po lygrap h e xa m in at io n i n 1 98 3, s up po se dl y be cau se th e po li ce d oubt edhi s v ers io n o f ev en ts at t he m ur de r sc en e. Sm it h s ay s t ha t i f hi s de fen se co un se l h adkn own ab ou t t ha t ex am in at io n, i t m ig hthave ledto us efu l im pe ach m en t ev id en ce ev enth ou gh th e ex am in at io n re su ltwas n otadm is si bl e un de r Fl or id a la w. Inrul in g o n S m ith’s Ru le 3.8 50 m ot io n, t he Flo rid a tr ia l co urt n ot edth atth e St at e as se rte d tha t t he rep ort ab ou t J on es ’ po lygrap h e xa m in at io n h adbe en di sc lo se d t o t he de fen se . Smit h d idno t o fferth en , no r ha s h e o ffer edsi nc e, an y ev id en ce tha t t he rep ort was no t d is cl os ed . The b es t Sm it h c ando is po in t t o h is la wy er’s s ta te m en t, m ad e in 20 02 , th at“ I do n’t re m em be r whe th er I d id[ge t t he po lygrap h i nf

orm at io n] or n ot .” Bo th th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt an d the fed eral di st ric t co urt n ot edth at th ere h adbe enno ev id en ce o ffer edto supp ort t hi s cl ai m . See Sm it h, 9 31 So . 2dat 79 9; Sm it h, 2 00 7 WL 23 02 20 7, at*8 . Becau se th e cl ai m ha s n o fa ctua l b as is , th e

30di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly den ie d i t. The all eg at io ns wil l n otbe co ns id eredinth e

m at eri al it y

an al y si s. 5. Sm it h c la im s t ha t an un di sc lo se d p ol ic e rep ort wri tt enby O ffi cer M ik e Krau se , who was t he fir stto in te rv ie w Hog le y W og le y co okDavi d M cGru de r, in di cat es th atMcGru de r to ldhi m bo th Sm it h a ndJo hn so n h aden te redth e rea r of th e ta xi . If th atis tru e, itco nt rad ic ts whatMcGru de r la te r sa idto po li ce an d te st ifi edto at t ria l, wh ic h was th atth e sh orte r, da rk er-s ki nn edm an(Sm it h) in to th e ba ckof the tax i wh il e th e ta ll er, l ig ht er-s ki nn edm an(Jo hn so n) go t i nt o t he fro nt . The re was no arg um en t i n a ny of Sm ith’s b rie fs to th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt t ha t t he fai lu re t o p ro vi de Offic er Krau se ’s rep ort t o t he de fen se vi ol at ed Brad y . Acco rd in gl y , Sm it h h as fai le d t o e xh au stth is Brad y cla im . See Keen ey

v. 8 Tom ay o- Reyes, 50 4 U.S. 1 , 10 , 11 2 S . Ct. 1 71 5, 1 72 0 (1 99 2) (“ Exh au st io n m ean s m or e th anno ti ce. Inrequi rin g e xh au st io n o f a fed eral cla im in st at e co urt, Co ng res s s ur el y

m ean t tha t ex haus ti on be ser io us an d m ean in gf ul .”). The Sta te ha s A footnote in the fa cts section of Smith’s initi al brief stated that Off

icer Kra use’s report 8 had not bee n provided to the de fense . But nowhe re in the brief did Smith argue that wa s a B rady violation. Failure to offer any argument on an issue in a brief a bandons that issue. See Z ivojinovich v. Bar

ner, 525 F .3d 1059, 1062 n.1 (11th Cir. 2008); United States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998).

31ne ve r arg ue d t ha t t hi s B rady cla im is pro cedur al ly barre d b utin st eadha s i gn or ed th e cl ai m alt og ethe r. Und er § 22 54 (d ), ho wev er, the Sta te can no t wai ve it s pr oc edur al bar arg um en t i n atru e fai lu re-t o- ex haus t s itua ti on by ign or in g the cl ai m . See Day v. M cDo no ug h, 5 47 U.S. 19 8, 2 06 , 12 6 S . Ct. 1 67 5, 1 68 2 (2 00 6) (“ [T]he Co urts of Ap pe al s h av e u na ni m ou sl y he ldth at , inap pr op ria te ci rcu m st an ces , cou rts , on th ei r own in it ia ti ve , m ay rai se a pe ti ti on er’s p ro cedur al de fau lt , i.e., a p et it io ne r’s fai lu re p ro pe rly to p res en t an all eg edco ns ti tu ti on al erro r in st at e co urt, an d t he co ns eque ntad equa cy an d i nd ep en de nc e o f st at e-l aw gr ou nd s fo r th e st at e-co urt ju dg m en t.”) ; s ee al so Mo on v. Head , 28 5 F .3d13 01 , 13 15 n.1 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) . Bec au se itis ap paren t t ha t t he Flo rid a co urts wou ldno w refu se to he ar thi s cl ai m , itis pro cedur al ly defau lt ed . Sno wde n v . Sin gl et ary, 13 5 F .3d73 2, 7 36 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) (“ [W] he n i t i s o bv io us th atth e u ne xh au st edcla im s wo ul d b e pr oc edur al ly barre d i n s ta te co urt due to st at e-l aw pr oc edur al de fau lt , we can fo reg o t he ne ed le ss ‘jud ic ia l p in g- po ng ’ an d ju sttre atth os e cl ai m s n ow b arre d b y st at e la w as n o b as is forfed eral habe as rel ie f.”). The all eg edev id en ce i t co nc ern s wil l n otbe co ns id eredin th e m at eri al it y an al y si s.

326.

Sm it h c la im s t ha t t he Sta te fai le d t o d is cl os e to hi m th e co nt en ts of t he po li ce re po rt m ad e aft er Sm it h was qu es ti on edin vi ol at io n o f Mi ran dav. Ari zo na , 38 4 U.S. 4 36 , 86 S. Ct. 1 60 2 (1 96 6) . It was th is Mi ran davi ol at io n t ha t l edto Sm ith’s 1 98 3 c on vi ct io n b ei ng rev ers ed , bu t h e arg ue s t ha t t he Sta te ’s fai lu re t o di sc lo se th e co nt en ts of t he rep ort p rev en te d t he de fen se fro m lea rn in g h ow t he po li ce h adus edhi s i m

pr op erl y ob ta in edst at em en ts inth ei r la te r in ve st ig at io ns . Sm ith a rg ue s t ha t b ecau se of t he Sta te ’s no nd is cl os ur e, th e d efen se co ul d n ot kn ow wh ethe r ot he r ev id en ce was th e fru itof t he Mi ran davi ol at io n. The di stric t co urt h el d tha t t hi s B rady cla im was p ro cedur al ly barre d be cau se Sm it h fa il edto rai se iton di rectap pe al aft er h is 19 90 tri al . Sm it h, 2 00 7 W L 23 02 20 7 a t * 9 (c it in g At wate r v. C ro sb y , 45 1 F .3d79 9, 8 10 (11 thCir . 20 06 ) (“ It i s wel l-s et tl edth atif the pe ti ti on er fai le d t o e xh au stst at e rem ed ie s an d t he co urt t o wh ic h t he pe ti ti on er wo ul d b e requi redto pre se nthi s cl ai m s i n o rd er t o m eetth e ex haus ti onrequi rem en t wo ul d n ow fi ndth e cl ai m s p ro cedur al ly barre d ... [,] th ere i s a p ro cedur al de fau ltforpu rp os es of f ed eral habe as . . . .”)). Sm it h d oe s

33no t d is pu te th e ap pl ic at io n o f th e p ro cedur al ba r, so itst an ds . The al le ge d 9
ev id en ce thi s cl ai m

co nc ern s wi ll no t b e co ns id eredin th e m at eri al it y an al y si s. B. The re ar e si x B rady

cla im s t ha t ar e n otpro cedur al ly barre d a ndth atin vo lv e fav or ab le ev id en ce tha t was actua ll y supp res se d. Th e ev id en ce i nv ol ve d i n t he se cl ai m s, wh ic h we a re ab ou t t o d is cu ss , is du e to be co ns id eredin th e cu m ul at iv e m at eri al it y

an al y si s re qu ire d b y

Ky le s, 5 14 U.S. at 4 34 , 11 5 S . Ct. at15 66 . 1. Sm it h c la im s t ha t t he Sta te fai le d t o d is cl os e ev id en ce tha t M el vi n J on es ta lk edto a pr os ecu to r on Apri l 1 9, 1 98 9 a ndm ad e st at em en ts th atth e d efen se co ul d h av e u se d t o i m

pe ach hi m . Notco nt en t wi th whathe ha d re cei ve d fo r hi s te st im on y at t he 19 83 tri al , Jo ne s t ol d t he pro se cu to r th atin ex ch an ge for te st ifyin g a ga in at t he 19 90 tri al he want edhe lp with s om e p ro ba ti on vi ol at io ns an d agrandth eftch arg e h e h adpe nd in g. Cf . Jan etJac ks on , “ Wha t Hav e You Don e fo r Me Lat el y ,” on Co nt ro l (A& M Re co rd s 1 98 6) .

We do not mean to imply , as Smith’s claim assumes, that Br ady applies outside the 9 rea lm of exculpatory

evidenc e and e x tends to evidenc e usef ul to the defe nse in a fr

uit-of-thepoisonous-tree que st. He cites no a uthority for that pr oposition and we would be ske ptical about concludingthat, espec ially in a fe dera l habea s proce eding . See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) .

34Sm it h ra is edth is cla im in th e arg um en t s ect io n o f hi s i ni ti al bri ef t o t he Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt. He b ro ug htitup ag ai n i n h is in it ia l b rie f to th e d is tri ct co urt. The Sta te ha s n ev er re sp on de d t o t hi s cl ai m or d en ie d t ha t the ev id en ce i t in vo lv es sh ou ldbe co ns id eredat t he m at eri al it y st ag e. It wi ll be . 2. Sm it h c la im s t ha t t he Sta te fai le d t o d is cl os e anAug us t 9 , 19 89 no te writ te n by the pro se cu to r who ha d re pr es en te d t he Sta te at S m it h’s 1 98 3 t ria l. The no te st at es th atMel vi n J on es cal le d t he pro se cu to r be cau se he was c on cern edth athi s daug ht er was go in g t o a ccu se hi m of s ex ua l ab us e co m

m it te d wh il e sh e was a m in or . Jo ne s s ai d t he accu sa ti on s wer e fal se an d d es ig ne d t o p rev en t h im fro m reu ni ti ng with h is wife . He want edth e p ro se cu to r’s of fic e to gi ve hi m

an d h is daug ht er p ol y gr ap h e xa m in at io ns . Sm it h, 9 31 So . 2dat 7 98 . Jo ne s was worr ie d ab ou t b ei ng arre st ed . In h er n ot e th e p ro se cu to r de sc rib edJo ne s’ st at e o f m in d t hi s way : “ He’s afra idhe ’ll b e arr es te d.” Sm it h a rg ue s t ha t J on es ’ fearof arres t b as ed on th os e acc us at io ns m ot iv at edhi m to tes ti fy at t he 19 90 tri al an d tha t t he in fo rm at io n i n t he no te co ul d h av e b een us edto sh ow J on es was t es ti fy in g a ga in to cu rry fav orwith t he Sta te in ord er t o h el p h im se lf o utof h is own leg al tro ub le s. The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t “ [t]he no te do es no t p ro vi de ex cu lp at ory

or i m pe ach m en t m at eri al . The n ot e was no t re le va nteit he r to th e

35ret ria l o r to Jo ne s’ m ot iv at io n t o p ro vi de tes ti m on y .” Id . The Un it edSta te s

Supr em e Co urt h as cle arl y he ld , ho wev er, tha t ev id en ce tha t co ul d b e u se fu l i n im pe ach in g p ro se cu ti on witne ss es m us t b e d is cl os edun de r Bra dy. See B ag le y , 47 3 U.S. at67 6, 1 05 S. Ct. at33 80 . Andth e Co urt h as he ldth atev id en ce o f
m ot iv at io n t o t es ti fy , esp eci al ly for k ey pro se cu ti onwitne ss es , is im pe ach m en t ev id en ce tha t m

us t b e d is cl os ed . See Gig li o, 4 05 U.S. at 1 54 –5 5, 9 2 S . Ct. at76 7 (“ Tali en to ’s cred ib il it y

as awitne ss was the refo re an im po rta ntis su e in th e cas e, an d e vi de nc e o f an y

un de rs ta nd in g o r ag reem en t as to a fu tu re p ro se cu ti onwou ld be rel ev an t t o h is cred ib il ity an d t he jury was en ti tl edto kn ow o f it .”); Ky le s, 5 14 U.S. at 4 42 n.1 3, 1 15 S. Ct. at15 69 n.1 3 (e vi de nc e sh owi ng th e m ot iv e fo r an im po rta ntgo ve rn m en t wi tn es s t o c om e fo rwardis im pe ach m en t ev id en ce co ve red by the Brad y

rul e); Napu e v . Ill in oi s, 3 60 U.S. 26 4, 2 69 , 79 S. Ct. 1 17 3, 1 17 7 (1 95 9) (“ The jury’ s es ti m at e o f th e trut hf ul ne ss an d re li ab il ity

of agi ve n wi tn es s m ay well be de te rm in at iv e o f gu il t o r in no cen ce, an d i t i s upo n s uc h s ub tl e fac to rs as th e p os si bl e in te res t o f th e wit ne ss in tes ti fy in g fa ls el y th ata de fen da nt 's l ife or li be rty m ay

de pe nd .”). Mel vi n J on es was a n i m

po rta ntSta te witne ss . He was the on ly ey ewit ne ss to th e cri m e who was n otin vo lv edin th e ro bb ery an d m ur de r. Bo th si de s reco gn iz edth athi s cr ed ib il ity was i m po rtant , andth e d efen se cro ss -ex am in edhi m 36in te ns el y

ab ou t h is m ot iv at io n t o t es ti fy at the 19 83 tri al an d abo utth e se nt en ci ng br eakhe go t fo r th attes ti m on y . At the 19 90 tri al , ho wev er, the de fen se ha d no th in g t o s ho w th atJo ne s h ada m ot iv e fo r te st ifyin g ag ai ns t Sm ith a ga in si nc e th e ch arg es he ha d fa cedin 19 83 were l on g g on e. The St at e fai le d t o d is cl os e th at Jo ne s d idha ve a ne w reas on to cu rry fav orwith t he pro se cu ti on—t ha t h e fea redhe wou ldbe ch arg edwith aser io us cri m e, th athe was l oo ki ng forhe lp fro m th e pr os ecu to r if

hi s fe ars were re al iz ed , andth athe ha d t al ke d wi th th e p ro se cu to r ab ou t i t b efo re h e te st ifi edat t he 19 90 tri al . Fo r th es e rea so ns , we con cl ud e th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on was un reas on ab le in so far a s i t d et erm in edth atth e p ro se cu to r’s 19 89 no te ab ou t Mel vi n J on es ’ fear s t ha t h e wou ldbe faci ng ch arg es th athe ha d s ex ua ll y ab us ed hi s d au gh te r was no t i m

pe ach m en t ev id en ce u nd er Br ady . The n ot e co ul d h av e se rv edto im

pe achanim

po rta ntpro se cu ti on witne ss , anditis un di sp ut edth atth e no te was n otdi sc lo se d. Th e ev id en ce ab ou t t he no te is du e to be co ns id eredat t he
m at eri al it y

st ag e. See Kyles, 5 14 U.S. at 4 50 , 11 5 S . Ct. at15 73 (“ [I]t wou ldha ve ha d s om e v al ue as e xc ul pa ti on an d i m pe ach m en t, an d i t co un ts acco rd in gl y in de te rm in in g wh ethe r . . . m at eri al it y is sat is fie d.” ).

373.

Sm it h c la im s t ha t t he Sta te fai le d t o d is cl os e p ol ic e rep orts in di cat in g t ha t Mel vi n J on es was i ni ti al ly lis te d a s a s us pe ctinth e m ur de r. The o nl y

reas on Jo ne s was a su sp ectis th athe li ve d wi th in a bl oc k o f th e cri m e sc en e an d h ad ou ts ta nd in g warran ts forhi s arres t. Sm it h, 9 31 So . 2dat 7 98 . Sm it h a rg ue s t ha t, al th ou gh th e d efen se kn ew ab ou t t he fact s t ha t caus edth e p ol ic e to su sp ectJo ne s, th e ad di ti on al factth atth e p ol ic e n ot edin a rep ort t ha t h e was co ns id ereda su sp ectis it se lf e xc ul pa to ry ev id en ce. The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt d et erm in edth at th e p ol ic e rep ort l is ti ng Jo ne s as a su sp ectwas n ot , alo ne , m at eri al . Sm it h, 9 31 So . 2dat 7 98 . The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t t he po li ce re po rt l is ti ng Mel vi n J on es as asu sp ectwas n otm at eri al by its el f is a reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f fed eral law. Th ere i s n o e vi de nc e th atJo ne s kne w, or ev enbe li ev ed , th athe was a su sp ectin th e So ng er m

ur de r, an d i t i s unc le ar h ow a p ol ic e rep ort tha t J on es was en ti rel y un aware of c ou ldpo ss ib ly hav e m ot iv at edhi m to do an yth in g. InKy le s, ho wev er, the Supr em e Co urt s ug ge st edth atBean ie , a witne ss who als o d idno t kn ow wh ethe r he was asu sp ect , st il l m ig htha ve worr ie d abo uthi s o wn cr im in al li ab il it y . 51 4 U.S. at44 2 n .13 , 11 5 S . Ct. at15 69 n.1 3. Th e Co urt h el d t ha t t he factth atBean ie was c on si de reda su sp ectwas i m pe ach m en t ev id en ce ag ai ns t h im . 38Id . Im

po rta nt ly, in Ky le s t he un di sc lo se d B rady m at eri al ke ptth e d efen se fro m kn owi ng th e fac tu al ba si s fo r Bea ni e’s co nc ernth athe m ig ht be a su sp ect . Inth is cas e, by con tra st , th e d efen se was wel l awa re tha t M el vi n J on es li ve d ve ry clo se to th e m

ur de r sc en e an d h adarre stwarran ts fora nu m be r of fel on ie s. Unl ik e in Ky le s, h ere t he de fen se ha d a ll th e fac ts itne ed edto ass ertth atJo ne s m ay ha ve co m e fo rwardin pa rt t o d od ge su sp ic io n tha t h e was th e sh oo te r. Sm ith’s co un se l ar gu edto th e jury tha t J on es m ay ha ve be enin vo lv edin th e m ur de r; a s a r es ul t, we ag ree wi th th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt t ha t t he ad di ti on al im pa ctof apre li m in ary po li ce re po rt l is ti ng Jo ne s as a su sp ect , esp eci al ly whe n Jo ne s h adno id ea tha t t he rep ort ex is te d, i s n otm at eri al by its el f. Bu t t he rep ort was fav or ab le to Sm ith, al th ou gh ba rel y , anditwas u nd is cl os ed . There fo re, the ev id en ce o f itsh ou ldbe co ns id eredin th e cu m ul at iv e m at eri al it y

an al y si s, ev en th ou gh itwil l n othe lp Sm it h m uc h. 4. Sm it h c la im s t ha t t he Sta te fai le d t o d is cl os e d oc um en ts rel at in g t o Dav id McGru de r, th e co okat t he Hog le y W og le y BBQ, th atco nt ai ne d i nf

orm at io n fav or ab le to th e d efen se . Tho se do cu m en ts are t he pro se cu to r’s syno ps is of h is swo rnin te rv ie w with M cGru de r an d thr ee p ol ic e rep orts fro m Marc h a ndApri l 19 83 . The p ro se cu to r’s syno ps is no te s t ha t t he de sc rip ti onMcGru de r ga ve of t he 39two m enhe saw o ut si de th e Hog le y W og le y fitSm it h andJo hn so n e xc ep t t ha t h is weig htest im at e fo r Sm it h was off by thi rty po un ds . The synop si s was da te d Ap ril 4, 1 98 3. 1 0 The in fo rm at io n i n t he po li ce re po rts sh ows th atSm it h was actua ll y as m uc h as sev en ty-fiv e p ou nd s h eav ie r th anth e m anMcGru de r de sc rib edto po li ce. The po li ce re po rt d at edApri l 8 als o s ho ws t ha t af te r he ha d i de nt ifi edSm it h i n a ph ot op akon th atda te , McGru de r rem ai ne d “ no t p os it iv e” o f th e id en ti fic at io n. Sm ith a rg ue s t ha t t he un di sc lo se d p ol ic e rep orts an d s yno ps is cas t d oubton McGru de r’s id en ti fic at io n o f Sm it h a s t he m anhe saw g etin to th e cab on th e n ig ht of th e m ur de r. The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt fo un d t ha t t he synop si s s ho ul d h av e b een di sc lo se d b uthe ldth atitwas n otm at eri al un de r Bra dy. It p oi nt edou t tha t atth e 19 90 tri al Sm it h’s co un se l cr os s- ex am in edMcGru de r in de pt h abo uthi s id en ti fic at io n o f Sm it h. Th atcro ss -ex am in at io n e xp os edin co ns is te nc ie s i n McGru de r’s te st im on y

ab ou t t he da te on whi ch he ha d i de nt ifi edSm ith, Sm it h’s ha ir s tyle an d app eara nc e in th e p ho to pa ckpi ctur e, an d ju stho w su re Mc Gru de r The April 4 sy

nopsis also indicates that McGr uder ha d been “ unable to pick e ither of 1 0 the def endants out of a

photopak.” That part of the sy nopsis was not evidenc e fa vorable to the defe nse, howe ver, be cause Smit h’s photog raph w as not amongthose that had be en shown to McGrude r up to that point. Sm ith, 931 So. 2d at 799. W hen Smith’s picture wa s included in the photopack on April 8, McGruder did identify

it. 40was ab ou t t he id en ti fic at io n. Se e Sm it h, 9 31 So . 2d79 9. Th e co urt’s p oi ntwas

th atth e jury was aware McGru de r was so m ewh atco nf us edan d u ns ur e o f th e id en ti fic at io n. Ad di ti on al ly, th e fi ng erp rin t fr om th e p ho ne at t he Hog le y W og le y —a p ie ce o f ev id en ce u nt ai nt edby any all eg at io n o f im pr op rie ty—supp orts McGru de r’s id en ti fic at io n. In li gh t o f th es e fac ts , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t t he synop si s was no t b y it se lf e no ug h to be m at eri al —n oten ou gh to un de rm in e o ur co nf id en ce i n t he gu il ty verd ic t— is reas on ab le . Non ethe le ss , bec au se th e syno ps is was s om ewh atfav or ab le to Sm it h an d was no t d is cl os ed , itis du e to be co ns id eredin th e cu m ul at iv e m at eri al it y an al y si s. The ev id en ce i n t he po li ce re po rts ab ou t t he sev en ty-fiv e p ou ndweig ht di ffer en ce an d M cGru de r no t b ei ng po si ti ve of h is id en ti fic at io n o f Sm it h i s al so du e to be co ns id eredin th atan al y si s. 5. Sm it h c la im s t ha t t he Sta te fai le d t o d is cl os e th atwitne ss es Mel vi n J on es an d Derric k J oh ns on , who di d n otot he rwis e kno w each othe r, ha d m etin jail be fo re the 19 83 tri al . Smit h arg ue s t ha t t he pro se cu to r ha d l earn edinSep te m be r 19 83 th aton Ju ly 11 o f th aty ear M el vi n J on es ap pr oa ch edJo hn so n i n aho ld in g cel l, s ho wedhi m

a m ap of the cri m e sc en e, an d o ffer edto he lp hi m in co nn ect io n 41wit h t he cas e. The p ro se cu to r’s br ie f no te ab ou t t ha t en co un te r was no t d is cl os ed

to th e d efen se . At th e Fl or id a tr ia l co urt h eari ng du rin g t he co ll at eral pro ceed in g, th e St at e co nc ed edth atth is ev id en ce m etth e fi rs t t wo p ro ng s o f Bra dy becaus e it was fav or ab le an d was no t d is cl os edto Sm ith. Id . at 7 97 . The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t t he ev id en ce o f Jo ne s an d J oh ns on ’s en co un te r was no t, al on e, m at eri al . Id. Tha t co nc lu si onwas re as on ab le . As th e co urt n ot ed , Sm it h’s d efen se at t he tri al was t ha t h e was no t i n t he tax i o n t he ni gh t of th e m ur de r an d t ha t J on es an d J oh ns onm us t h av e co ll ud edto fram e h im . Jo ne s an d J oh ns on di d n otkn ow ea ch ot he r atth e ti m e o f th e m ur de r. In a dd it io n, t he de fen se ’s th eo ry

was t ha t J oh ns on go t J on es to li e fo r hi m , bu t t he un di sc lo se d in fo rm at io n s ho ws t ha t J on es ap pr oa ch edJo hn so n, n otth e o th er way aro un d. It al so sh ows th atJo ne s’ app ro ach un se tt le d J oh ns on . Jo hn so n was so un ne rv edth at he ha d b een ap pr oa ch edby a str an ge r who kn ew de ta il s ab ou t t he cri m e th athe imm ed ia te ly call edth e g ua rd s an d a sk edto be rem ov edfro m th e h ol di ng cel l. Id . Thu s, dur in g t he ir b rie f en co un te r Jo ne s an d J oh ns ondi d n otactua ll y di sc us s t he fact s o f th e cas e. Sm it h, 9 31 So . 2dat 7 97 . Invi ew of

th e ci rcu m st an ces , itis reas on ab le forth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt to ha ve fou ndth atth e b rie f en co un te r be twee n J on es an d J oh ns on , in it ia te d b y Jo ne s i n aho ld in g c el l m on th s af te r th e cri m e, was to o t hi n aba si s t o c on st ru cta 42st ro ng arg um en t t ha t t he two co ok edup th e en ti re s to ry to fram e Sm ith. Co ns id eredby its el f, ev id en ce tha t J on es an d J oh ns onm etbri efl y in a ho ld in g c el l co ns id eredis no t en ou gh to un de rm in e o urco nf id en ce i n t he gu il ty verd ic t. Itis , ho wev er, ev id en ce tha t i s due to be co ns id eredforwhat ev er i t i s wo rth in th e cu m ul at iv e m at eri al it y

an al y si s. 6. Fi na ll y , Sm it h c la im s tha t s ev eral po li ce re po rts co nt ai n i m pe ach m en t ev id en ce ag ai ns t Pr is ci ll a Walke r. One o f th os e rep orts in di cat es th atW al ke r to ld po li ce i n 1 98 8 tha t o n t he ni gh t o f th e m ur de r, Sm it h h adreturne d t o h er h ou se aro un d 1 :0 0 a .m . andrem ai ne d t he re u nt il 5: 00 a.m . Thatst at em en t co nf li ct s wi th un di sc lo se d s ta te m en ts m ad e b y ot he r pe op le who st at edth atSm it h was els ewh ere by arou nd1: 30 a.m . th atm orni ng . This ev id en ce i s due to be co ns id eredat t he cu m ul at iv e m at eri al it y

st ag e. 1 1 VI. The Supr em e Co urt h el d i n Kyles t ha t t he th irdco m po ne ntof t he Brad y /B ag le y tes t, wh ic h i s t he m at eri al ity an al y si s, m

us t b e co nduc te d i n away Smit h also claims that another repor t, one by Offic er K ewin date d Marc h 23, 1983, 1 1 indicates that whe n Walker and James Matthews we re f irst interviewe d “they

g ave no inf

o” to police. Walker e x plained, howe ver, that she g ave no inf ormation about Smith because she was not asked. B eca

use her explanation is uncontradicted, the inf ormation in that police re port is not favor able to Smith. 43th atco ns id ers th e cu m ul at iv e im

pa ctof a ll of t he un di sc lo se d e vi de nc e fav or ab le to th e d efen se . Ky le s, 5 14 U.S. at 4 36 , 11 5 S . Ct. at15 67 (“ The fou rth an d fi na l as pe ctof B ag le y

m at eri al it y

to be st res se d h ere i s i ts de fin it io n i n t erm s o f supp res se d e vi de nc e co ns id eredco ll ect iv el y , no t i te m by item .”). The C ou rt ex pl ai ne d: “ W e ev al ua te th e te nd en cy an d fo rce o f th e u nd is cl os edev id en ce i te m by ite m ; t he re i s n o o th er way. W e ev al ua te it s cu m ul at iv e eff

ectfor pu rp os es of
m at eri al it y

sep arat el y

an d a t the en d o f th e d is cu ss io n.” Id. at43 7 n .10 , 11 5 S . Ct. at15 67 n.1 0; see als o B ro wn v . Head , 27 2 F .3d13 08 , 13 16 (11 thCir . 20 01 ) (In pe rfo rm in g acum

ul at iv e m at eri al it y

an al y si s, “ th e co ll ect iv e im pa ctof a ll of t he supp res se d e vi de nc e m

us t b e co ns id eredag ai ns t t he to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces ”) (ci ti ng Ky le s, 5 14 U.S. at 4 41 , 11 5 S . Ct. at15 69 ). W e h av e ex pl ai ne d tha t t he an al yti cal pro ces s o f gaug in g m at eri al it y be gi ns wit h d et erm in in g the for ce an d e ffec t o f eac h i nd iv idua l i te m of f av or ab le ev id en ce n otdi sc lo se d t o the de fen se . Whi le th e “ m at eri al it y de te rm in at io n m

us t co ns id er the ag gr eg at e eff ectof a ll th e supp res se d e vi de nc e . . . [t]hatdo es no t m ean . . . th atanin di vi du al ass es sm en t o f eac h p ie ce o f supp res se d e vi de nc e is so m eh ow i napp ro pr ia te . Ind eed , th e o nl y way to ev al ua te th e cu m

ul at iv e eff

ectis to fir stex am in e eac h p ie ce s tand in g a lo ne .” Mah araj, 4 32 F.3dat 1 31 0 (i nt ern al ci ta ti on om it te d) . Butitis ess en ti al th atth e p ro ces s n oten d a fte r eac h u nd is cl os ed 44pi ece o f ev id en ce h as be ensi zedup . The p ro ces s m us t co nt in ue be cau se Brad y m at eri al it y

is a to ta li ty-of-t he -ev id en ce m acro co ns id erat io n, n otanit em -b y -it em m ic ro on e. The m os t co m m on erro r co urts m ak e in co nduc ti ng th e Bra dy
m at eri al it y

an al y si s i s t o s to p h al f way th ro ug h the pro ces s—th ey co ns id er the fo rce a ndeffe ctof t he un di sc lo se d e vi de nc e o ne it em at ati m e b utdo no t co ns id er itcum ul at iv el y . See Ky le s, 5 14 U.S. at 4 40 , 11 5 S .Ct. at15 69 (fi nd in g faul t wi th th e co urt o f ap pe al s fo r it s “ rep eat edrefer en ces di sm is si ng pa rti cu la r it em s o f ev id en ce as imm at eri al an d s o s ug ge st in g t ha t cu m ul at iv e m at eri al ity

was n otth e to uc hs to ne ”). Cu m ul at iv e an al y si s o f th e fo rce andeffe ctof t he un di sc lo se d p ie ces of fav or ab le ev id en ce m at te rs be cau se th e su m of t he pa rts alm os t i nv ari ab ly w il l b e gr eat er tha n a ny ind iv idua l p art . Whe th er the su m of t he withh el d e vi de nc e fav or ab le to th e d efen se wil l b e en ou gh to crea te a reas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t t he jury w ou ldha ve acqui tt edwil l d ep en d o n two fa ct or s. One fact oris th e n et in cu lp at ory

weig htof the ev id en ce o n b ot h s id es th atactua ll y was p res en te d a t tri al . The o th er fa ct oris th e ag gr eg at e effe ctth atth e wit hh el d e vi de nc e wou ld ha ve ha d i f itha d b een di sc lo se d. The se two fact or s ar e b ro ug htto be ar atth e cru ci al sec on d s te p o f th e m at eri al it y pro ces s, wh ic h b eg in s wi th pu tt in g o n t he sc al es th e ev id en ce tha t was pre se nt edat t ria l— ev id en ce fa vo rin g t he pro se cu ti on 45on on e si de , th atfav or in g the de fen se on th e o th er. The n t he for ce an d e ffec t o f al l

of th e u nd is cl os edex cu lp at ory ev id en ce i s ad de d t o t he weig htof t he ev id en ce o n th e d efen se si de , whi le th e fo rce a ndeffec t o f al l t he un di sc lo se d i m pe ach m en t ev id en ce i s s ub tra ct edfro m th e wei gh t o f th e ev id en ce o n t he pro se cu ti on ’s si de . Id . at 4 37 , 11 5 S .Ct. at15 67 (refe rri ng to th e “ res po ns ib il it y to gaug e th e li ke ly net effe ctof a ll su ch ev id en ce”) . Onc e th e ev id en ce o n t he sca le s i s ad jus te d t o t ak e in to acco un t t he co m bi ne d fo rce a ndeffe ctof t he un di sc lo se d e vi de nc e fav or ab le to th e d efen se , th e st an da rdth atis ap pl ie d i s n oton e o f su ffi ci en cy of e vi de nc e to co nv ic t. Itis in st eadwhet he r wha t i s l efton bo th si de s o f th e sc al e aft er ad jus ti ng forth e wit hh el d e vi de nc e cre at es a reas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t a ju ry wou ldacqui t, an d a reas on ab le pro babi li ty is o ne su ffi ci en t t o u nd erm in e o urco nf id en ce i n t he gu il ty ve rd ic t. Id . at 4 53 , 11 5 S .Ct. at15 75 (“ [T]he que st io n i s n otwhet he r th e St at e wou ldha ve ha d acas e to go to th e jury if itha d d is cl os edth e fav or ab le ev id en ce, bu t wh ethe r we can be co nf id en t t ha t t he jury’ s v erd ic t wo ul d h av e b een th e sa m e.”). Of co ur se , th e st ro ng er the ev id en ce o f gu il t t o b eg in with, t he m or e fav or ab le to th e d efen se th e u nd is cl os edev id en ce wi ll ha ve to be to crea te a reas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t a ju ry wou ldha ve acqui tt edha d t he ev id en ce b een di sc lo se d. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Am ie l, 9 5 F .3d13 5, 1 46 (2dCir . 19 96 ); Un it ed 46St at es v. Go nz al ez, 9 3 F .3d31 1, 3 17 (7t h C ir.1 99 6) ; s ee al so Uni te d S ta te s v .

Nor ie ga , 11 7 F .3d12 06 , 12 19 –2 0 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7) . Whe n afed eral habe as co urt co nduc ts or r ev ie ws a B rady m at eri al it y

an al y si s, i t co ns id ers in th e cu m ul at iv e weig hi ng pro ces s o nl y

th e u nd is cl os edevi de nc e co ve redin th e Bra dy clai m s t ha t are n otpro cedur al ly barre d. Se e Kel le y v. Se c’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., 37 7 F .3d13 17 , 13 44 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (“ Thu s, the pro hi bi ti onag ai ns t ra is in g n on ex haus te d c la im s in fed eral co urt ex te nd s n oton ly to b ro adleg al th eo rie s o f rel ie f, bu t al so to th e sp eci fic ass ert io ns of f

actth atm ig htsupp ort re li ef.”) ; cf . Ogl e v . Jo hn so n, 4 88 F.3 d 1 36 4, 1 36 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) (“ To h av e ex haus te d t he se eig htcla im s, Og le ha d t o p res en t t he eig htin st an ces of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e th athe no w ass ert s i n hi s fe de ral pe ti ti on. . . .”); Peo pl es v. Ca m pb el l, 3 77 F.3d12 08 , 12 39 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (“ [W] e ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt’s s ta te m en t o f law th ata habe as pe ti ti on er m ay

no t p res en t i ns ta nc es of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l i n h is fed eral pe ti ti on th atth e st at e co urt h as no t ev al ua te d p rev io us ly.” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ). Co ns id eri ng un di sc lo se d e vi de nc e th ata pe ti ti on er fai le d t o p ro pe rly pres en t i n aBrad y cla im in th e st at e co urts wou ldun de rm in e th e im po rta ntpo li ci es be hi ndth e p ro cedur al ba r ru le s. See ge ne ral ly; Lam br ix v. Si ng le ta ry , 52 0 U.S. 5 18 , 52 3, 1 17 S. Ct. 1 51 7, 1 52 2 (1 99 7) (di sc us si ng th e po li ci es un de rlyin g t he pro cedur al ba r ru le s) ; Kel le y , 37 7 F .3dat 1 34 4. Cf . Ogl e, 4748 8 F .3dat 1 36 8; Peo pl es , 37 7 F .3dat 1 23 9. So , inth e p res en t ca se , th e o nl y

un di sc lo se d e vi de nc e to be co ns id eredat t he cu m ul at iv e m at eri al ity

st ag e is th at whi chwas p ro pe rly rais edin th e Bra dy clai m s Sm it h b ro ug htbe fo re the st at e co urts . Afte r si fti ng th ro ug h a ll of S m it h’s Br ady cla im s, we d eci de d tha t t he re ar e si x o f th em

th atare n otpro cedur al ly barre d a ndth atdo in vo lv e fav or ab le ev id en ce th atwas a ctua ll y

supp res se d. Se e Part V.B., s up ra. To re cap , th os e si x Brad y cla im s ar e th e o ne s i nv ol vi ng ev id en ce tha t: (1) Mel vi n J on es so ug hthe lp fro m th e p ro se cu to r wit h t he pro ba ti on vi ol at io n a ndgra ndth eftch arg es ag ai ns t hi m ; (2 ) Mel vi n J on es , feari ng arre st , so ug hthe lp fro m th e p ro se cu to r inreg ardto th e se xu al ab us e al le ga ti on s h is daug ht er was m ak in g a ga in sthi m ; (3 ) on e o r m or e po li ce re po rts in di cat edth atMel vi n J on es ha d i ni ti al ly been co ns id eredas a su sp ectin 19 83 ; (4 ) a p ro se cu to r’s syno ps is of a n i nt erv ie w of Dav idMcGru de r an d s om e p ol ic e rep orts cas t d oubton McGru de r’s id en ti fic at io n o f Sm it h; (5) a pr os ecu to r’s no te in di cat edth atJo ne s an d J oh ns on ha d m etbri efl y in a ho ld in g cel l b efo re the 19 83 tri al ; an d (6 ) se ve ral rep orts sh owe d t ha t Pr is ci ll a Walke r’s st at em en t t o t he po li ce ab ou t wh enSm it h was at h er h ou se co nf li ct edwith st at em en ts by oth ers ab ou t wh ere h e was du rin g t ha t t im e.

48Bec au se of AEDPA, 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d ), we fir staskwhet he r th e Fl or id a

Supr em e Co urt re as on ab ly deci de d t ha t t ho se si x p ie ces of wi th he ldev id en ce, co ns id eredcu m

ul at iv el y , were n otm at eri al . W e co nc lu de th atco urt d idno t 1 2
reas on ab ly deci de th is is su e b ecau se itdi d n otde ci de th is is su e atall . There i s ro om forde ba te ab ou t wh ethe r th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt p erfo rm edan y cu m ul at iv e an al y si s o f th e fav or ab le ev id en ce i t fo un d h adbe enwithh el d fr om th e de fen se . See Sm it h, 9 31 So . 2dat 7 97 –7 99 . Howev er, the re i s n o ro om forde ba te ab ou t wh ethe r th atco urt p erfo rm eda cu m ul at iv e m at eri al ity

an al y si s o f al l s ix of th e p ie ces of f

av or ab le ev id en ce we h av e co nc lu de d wer e wit hh el d fr om th e de fen se . As we h av e p oi nt edou t, the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt u nr eas on ab ly de te rm in edth atth e fac t M el vi n J on es ha d t al ke d wi th th e p ro se cu to r be fo re the 19 90 tri al ab ou t h is fear s t ha t h e wou ldbe ch arg edwith t he sex ua l ab us e o f hi s daug ht er was no t i m

pe ach m en t ev id en ce u nd er Br ady . See Part V.B.2 , supr a. Fo r th atreas onth e co urt d idno t co ns id er tha t ev id en ce i n c on du ct in g i ts m at eri al it y an al y si s, wh ethe r th atan al y si s was cu m ul at iv e o r no t. Itfol lo ws t ha t we ca nn ot de fer t o i ts de ci si onab ou t wh ethe r th e wit hh el d e vi de nc e was m at eri al . See The Ky les dec ision was issued in 1995. The F lorida Supreme Court’ s decision in this 1 2 case that aff

irmed denia l of collater al re lief on the B rady claims was issued in 2006. See Smith v. State, 931 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 2006) . So the Kyles cumulative mate riality rule wa s “cle arly established F eder al law, a s determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” within the meaningof § 2254(d) (1). 49Pan etti v. Qu art erm an , 55 1 U.S. 9 30 , __ , 12 7 S . Ct. 2 84 2, 2 85 8– 59 (20 07 ) (“ Whe n

a st at e co urt’s ad

jud ic at io n o f a cl ai m

is de pe nd en t o n a n a nt eced en t unr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f fed eral law, the requi rem en t s etforthin § 2 25 4( d) (1 ) is sat is fie d. A fed eral co urt m

us t t he n re so lv e th e cl ai m witho utth e d efer en ce AEDPA ot he rwis e requi res .”). W e co ul d c on du ctth e cu m ul at iv e m at eri al ity

an al y si s i nv ol vi ng th e si x pi eces of wi th he ldev id en ce o ur se lv es , bu t we t hi nkitwou ldbe be ne fic ia l t o rem an d the cas e so th atth e d is tri ctco urt ca n d o t ha t i n t he fir stin st an ce. The di st ric t co urt h as no t yet pe rfo rm edth atan al y si s an d i n t he cir cu m st an ces of t hi s cas e we th in k t ha t re so lu ti on of the is su e wil l b en efi t fr om a two -ti ered co ns id erat io n. 1 3 VII . Sm it h a ls o c on te nd s t ha t h is de fen se co un se l re nd eredin effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l dur in g the gu il t p ha se of h is tri al . See g en eral ly Stri ck la ndv. W as hi ng to n, 4 66 U.S. 66 8, 1 04 S. Ct. 2 05 2 (1 98 4) . To sa ti sf y th e Stric kl an d

Smit h’s re newe d motion to hol d this appeal in abe yancependingcompletion of his 1 3 Rule 3.851 proce edingin state court is denie d. We leave e ntirely

to the discretion of the district court on re mand whethe r to hold in abeyance further

proce eding s in that court pendingthe completion of some or all stag es of the pendingstate cour

t proce eding . 50st an da rd , Sm it h m us t fi rs t d em on st rat e th athi s co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt , whi ch m ean s t ha t i t “ fel l b el ow an ob jecti ve st an da rdof reas on ab le ne ss .” Id . at 6 88 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 64 . To do so Sm ith m us t o ve rco m e a st ro ng pre su m

pt io n t ha t h is co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce fe ll withi n t he bro adran ge of

“ reas on ab le pro fes si on al ass is ta nc e,” an d h e m us t p ro ve any

ne ces sary

fact s b y a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce. Id . at 6 89 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 65 ; Ch an dl er v . Uni te d St at es , 21 8 F .3d13 05 , 13 13 –1 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) (enba nc ) (ex pl ai ni ng th ata de fen da ntm

us t s ho w th at“no co m

pe te ntco un se l wo ul d h av e ta ke n the act io n t ha t hi s co un se l d idtak e”). Se co nd , Sm it h m us t s ho w th atth ere i s a r eas on ab le pr ob ab il it y

th ere wo ul d h av e b een a di ffer en t v erd ic t b utforhi s co un se l’s unpr of es si on al erro rs . Stri ck land , 46 6 U.S. at69 4, 1 04 S. Ct. at20 68 . A reas on ab le pro babi li ty is o ne su ffi ci en t t o u nd erm in e o urco nf id en ce i n t he ve rd ic t. Id . Und er AEDPA ou r ta skis to de ci de whethe r th e Fl or id a co urts ’ reject io n o f Sm ith’s i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e cl ai m s i s co nt rary to, o r anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of , “ cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law, as de te rm in edby the Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s.” 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d ); M arqua rd , 42 9 F .3dat 1 30 4. Th e d is tri ct co urt co nc lu de d t ha t t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt d idno t u nr eas on ab ly app ly clear ly es tabl is he d fe de ral law. We revi ew th atjud gm en t d e n ov o. Hal l, 3 10 F.3dat 6 90 . 51A.

Sm it h’s fi rs t i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l cl ai m in vo lv es hi s tria l co un se l’s fa il ur e to pre se ntth e te st im on y of a li bi witne ss es . He says th athi s fri en ds Khan Cam

pb el l, J am es Hawki ns , andDin a Watki ns all saw h im at No rm ’s Bar a t 1 1: 30 p.m . on th e n ig htof t he m ur de r. Tria l co un se l kne w th os e th ree pe op le wou ldtes ti fy

to th at , bu t h e ch os e n otto cal l t he m as wi tn es se s b ecau se he be li ev edth ey

were l y in g. The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t t hi s cl ai m “was no t ra is edbe lo w andis th eref or e n otpre se rv edfor

ap pe ll at e rev ie w.” Sm it h, 9 31 So . 2dat 8 02 . As th e co urt n ot ed , a rel at edcla im by Sm it h a tt rib ut edhi s co un se l’s fa il ur e to cal l Cam pb el l an d Hawk in s t o aco nf li ctof i nt eres t. Ho wev er, tha t cl ai m was b arre d be cau se itha d n otbe enrai se d o n d ire ctap pe al . Id. The res ul t was th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt fo un d p ro cedur al ly barre d a ll va ria ti on s o f Sm it h’s cl ai m th athi s al ib i wi tn es se s s ho ul d h av e b een cal le d t o t es ti fy . Smit h d oe s n otco nt en d t ha t h e can esc ap e th e eff

ectof t he pro cedur al bar in th is fed eral habe as pro ceed in g b y sh owi ng eit he r cau se an d p reju di ce o r a fu nd am en ta l m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e. See

52Co le m an , 50 1 U.S. at73 0, 1 11 S. Ct. at25 54 ; Mi ze, 5 32 F.3dat 1 19 0. Th e cl ai m

is barredfro m

rev ie w her e. 1 4 B. Sm it h c la im s t ha t h is tri al co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to pro pe rly in ve st ig at e an d c ro ss -ex am in e FBI Agen t Do na ldHave ko st , who tes ti fie d a s an ex pe rt wi tn es s ag ai ns t Sm it h a t h is 19 90 tri al . At th e ti m e o f hi s t es ti m on y Hav ek os t h adbe enacce pt edas an e xp ertin th e fi el d o f le adco m po si ti on al an al y si s an d h adbe enall owe d t o t es ti fy as o ne in hu nd red s o f tr ia ls . Bas edon hi s ex pe rti se Have ko sttes ti fie d t ha t h e was “un ab le to di st in gu is h” be twee n the bu ll et frag m en t fo un d i n S on ge r’s cl othi ng an d t he bu ll et s fr om th e b ox fou ndinSm it h’s un cl e’s ho us e. He ga ve hi s o pi ni on th atth e fra gm en t an d t he bu ll et s “ or ig in at ed fro m a co m m on so ur ce.” When ask edwhet he r th atco m po si ti on al si m il ari ty cou ld Two additional points deserve mention. First, attorne y s are not require d to violate 1 4 ethical standa

rds to serve their client’s e nds. A defe ndant has no c onstitut ional right to have his attorney prese nt evidencethat the attorne y believes is fa lse. See Nix v. W hiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 171, 106 S.Ct . 988, 996 (1986) ( an attorne y ’s re fusal to assist in the prese ntation of perjur y and his threat to withdrawif the def endant took the stand a

nd lied “fa lls well within acce pted standards of

profe ssional conduct and the rang e of r easona ble profe ssional conduct ac cepta ble under Strickland” ); Davis v. Single tary , 119 F.3d 1471, 1475 ( “The duty to rende r ef

fec tive assistance of counse l does not include the duty to present f

alse or mislea ding te stimony .”). Second, the que stionable testimony would not have pr ovided Smith wit h much of a n alibi even if it were true. Nor

m’s Ba r is acr oss the street f

rom the Hog ley

Wogley BB Q wher e the c all to the cab w as made shortly afte r midnight a

nd wher e Smith met the cab.

53ha ve oc cu rredby chan ce, Hav ek os t d is m is se d t he po ss ib il it y as “ es se nt ia ll y no th in g.” Sm it h a rg ue s t ha t h is tri al co un se l s ho ul d h av e b et te r pr ep aredhi m se lf fo r th attes ti m on y

an d a tt ack edth e sc ie nt ifi c b as is of Hav ek os t’s t es ti m on y , whi ch ha s s in ce b een cal le d i nt o s om e d oubt . The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt d eci de d tha t t he pe rfo rm an ce o f Sm it h’s co un se l in th is res pe ctwas n otde fic ie nt . Sm it h, 9 31 So . 2dat 8 01 (“ Sm it h fa il edto m eet th e fi rs t p ro ng of t he Str ic kl an d s ta nd ard .”). The c ou rt a ckno wled ge d tha t t welv e y ears aft er the 19 90 tri al , at t he st at e co ll at eral he ari ng Sm it h p res en te d a no th er ex pe rt wh o t es ti fie d abo utth e fl awedna tu re o f Hav ek os t’s t es ti m on y . But , as t he Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt ex pl ai ne d:

The ev id en ce p res en te d a t t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng am pl y de m on st rat edth atSm it h’s t ria l co un se l h ire d a n e xp ertto ex am in e th e sc ie nt ifi c ev id en ce i n que st io n a ndto ch al le ng e it . The ex pe rt, h owe ve r, fo un d n o p ro bl em s wi th th e FBI an al y si s. In ad di ti on , def en se co un se l hi m se lf r es earc he d t he FBI’s s ci en ti fic m etho do lo gy. Fin al ly, Sm it h’s ex pe rt adm it te d a t t he po st -co nv ic ti on he ari ng th atno res earc h, i nc lu di ng hi s o wn, was av ai labl e to ch al le ng e th e FBI ev id en ce atth e ti m e o f ret ria l. Acco rd in gl y , Sm it h fa il edto m eetth e fi rs t p ro ng of t he Str ic kl an d s tand ard . Id . at 8 01 . Thatco nc lu si on is en ti rel y reas on ab le . Ju stas c ou ns el are n otrequi red to an ti ci pa te ch an ge s i n t he law, n ei th er are th ey requi redto an ti ci pa te ch an ge s i n sc ie nc e. See LeC ro y , 42 1 F .3dat 1 26 1 n .27 ; Tarv er v . Hop pe r, 16 9 F .3d71 0, 7 14 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) ; Sp azi an o v . Sin gl et ary, 36 F.3d10 28 , 10 39 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ); s ee 54al so Str ic kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 89 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 65 (“ A fai r as se ss m en t o f at to rn ey

pe rfo rm an ce re qu ire s t ha t ev ery effo rt b e m ad e to eli m in at e th e d is to rti ng effe ct s of hi nd si gh t, t o re co ns tru ctth e ci rcu m st an ces of c ou ns el ’s cha ll en ge d c on du ct , an d t o e va lu at e th e co nduc t fr om co un se l’s p ers pe ct iv e atth e ti m e.”) C. Sm it h c la im s t ha t h is co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to lo cat e an d in te rv ie w Ventur a Gib so n a ndpre se nthi s t es ti m on y . Mel vi n J on es tes ti fie d i n a de po si ti on be fo re the 19 83 tri al th atGib so n h adgi ve n h im a ri de ho m e o n t he ni gh t o f th e m

ur de r an d h addro pp edhi m off ne ar h is ho us e sh ortl y

be fo re So ng er’s cab arri ve d. Gib so n was ne ve r co nt act eddu rin g t he de fen se ’s pr ep arat io n fo r ei th er the 19 83 or t he 19 90 tri al . Duri ng th e st at e co ll at eral pr oc eed in g i n 2 00 2 Gi bs on was a sk edth es e que st io ns an d g av e th es e an swe rs : Q. Do y oureca ll ev er t ak in g M el vi n J on es fro m 27 th Str eetan d 1 8t h Ave nu e o ve r to Fai rfi el d Av enue So ut h? A. No, I can no t. Q. Do y ouev er re cal l t ak in g M el vi n J on es or d riv in g h im an ywhe re? A. No. On cr os s- ex am in at io n t hi s ex ch an ge to okpl ace:

55Q. Andjus t s o t he reco rdis cle ar, y ou r te st im on y to da y is y oudo no t re cal l whe th er o r no t you g av e Me lv inJo ne s a r id e in Marc h o f 19 83 ; i sn ’t th at y ou r te st im on y

to da y ? A. Yes, I d idno t g iv e h im a ri de . Q. No, si r. I’m

ask in g youon di rectex am in at io n d id n’t you s ay y oudo no t recal l? A. I do no t re cal l g iv in g h im a ri de ; n o. Q. Youco ul d h av e, bu t you d on ’t recal l? A. No, I d idno t g iv e h im a ri de . Late r on Gib so n t es ti fie d: “ I do n’t re m em be r ta ki ng Mel vi n t o F ai rfi el d.” Ask ed whe th er i t was co rrec t t ha t h e si m pl y di d n otrem em

be r on e way

or t he ot he r be cau se itha d b een ni ne te eny ears , Gib so n s ai d: “ I’m no t t ak in g M el vi n no whe re.” Tria l co un se l adm it te d t ha t h e h adm ad e n o e ffo rt t o c on ta ctGib so n t o ch eckJo ne s’ st ory

ab ou t h ow h e h adarri ve d a t t he cri m e sc en e. Sm it h a rg ue s t ha t be cau se Jo ne s was su ch anim po rta ntwitne ss co un se l’s fa il ur e to fin d a ndpre se nt Gib so n a s a wi tn es s t o i m pe ach on e as pe ctof J on es ’ te st im on y was d efi ci en t pe rfo rm an ce tha t p reju di cedth e d efen se . The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt d eci de d tha t Sm it h h adfai le d t o m eeteit he r Stric kl an d p ro ng forth is cla im . Sm it h, 9 31 So . 2dat 8 01 . It tho ug htth at co un se l’s fa il ur e to in te rv ie w Gib so n was no t a s eri ou s erro r be cau se an y qu es ti on 56ab ou t h ow J on es arri ve d a t t he cri m e sc en e was a “ m in or , col la te ral ” is su e. Id .

W e n eedno t co ns id er wh ethe r th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s co nc lu si on ab ou t t he pe rfo rm an ce co m

po ne ntwas re as on ab le , bec au se we are co nv in cedof t he reas on ab le ne ss of i ts alt ern at iv e co nc lu si on th atth ere was no pre jud ic e. See i d. The re was no th in g u nu su al ab ou t J on es be in g o n apubl ic st reetne ar wh ere t he cri m e o ccu rred , andho w he c am e to be th ere i s n ota cri ti cal fact . The p os si bi li ty of a swe ari ng m at ch ab ou t t ha t m at te r do es no t m atte r; i t i s n oten ou gh to un de rm in e o urco nf

id en ce i n t he gu il ty verd ic t. Mo re p reci se ly, itwas n ot un reas on ab le forth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt t o d eci de th atth ere i s n o re as on ab le pr ob ab il it y

of adi ffer en t re su ltif Gi bs on ha d b een pre se nt edas awitne ss . Ourde ci si on to ass um e o urway pa stth e p erfo rm an ce que st io n a ndde ci de th is in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m on th e al te rn at iv e g ro un d o f no pr ejud ic e im

pl ic at es an ot he r arg um en t o f Sm it h’s. He co nt en ds th atth e p reju di ce in qu iry for i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e cl ai m s an d fo r Bra dy clai m s m us t b e co m

bi ne d so th atan y

pre jud ic e fro m

de fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce o f co un se l an d a ny preju di ce fro m th e fai lu re t o d is cl os e ev id en ce fa vo rab le to th e d efen se m us t b e co ns id ered cu m ul at iv el y . See Ca rg le v. Mu ll in , 31 7 F .3d11 96 , 12 06 –0 7 (1 0t h C ir. 2 00 3) (n ot in g t he Tent h C irc ui t’s p ract ic e o f ag gr eg at in g a ll erro rs in cum ul at iv e

57an al y si s, ev enth os e b as edon di ve rs e le ga l cl ai m s, i nc lu di ng Str ic kl an d a nd

Brad y ). The di stric t co urt d idno t co ns id er tha t ar gu m en t b ecau se itwas n otfai rly pr es en te d. On ly one sen te nc e in Sm it h’s 1 16 -p ag e p et it io n fo r a wri t o f habe as m en ti on edth e p os si bi li ty of in te r-cl ai m cu m ul at iv e an al y si s an d n o aut ho rity was ci te d fo r it . Sm it h d idno t ev enall ud e to th e arg um en t i n h is co m bi ne d 1 23 -p ag e m em or an daof l aw insupp ort o f hi s p et it io n. Tha t i s n otad equa te pre se nt at io n o f th e is su e. See Un it edSta te s v . Mas se y , 44 3 F .3d81 4, 8 19 (11 thCir . 20 06 ) (an is su e was no t ad equa te ly pres en te d u nl es s i t was rai se d i n away th atth e d is tri ct co urt co ul d n otm is un de rs ta ndit ); Un it edSta te s v . Dun ke l, 9 27 F.2d95 5, 9 56 (7t h Ci r. 19 91 ) (“ Ju dg es are n otli ke pi gs , hu nt in g fo r tr uf fle s b ur ie d i n b rie fs .”); cf. Fl an ig an ’s Ent ers . Inc . v. Fu lt on Co un ty, 24 2 F .3d97 6, 9 87 n.1 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) (h ol di ng th atanarg um en t was waiv edbe cau se th e ap pe ll an ts “ fai l[e d] to elabo rat e orpro vi de an y

cit at io n o f au th or it y

in supp ort o f” the arg um en t i n t he ir b rie f). Bec au se th e is su e o r arg um en t was no t p ro pe rly pres en te d t o t he di st ric t co urt, we wil l n otde ci de it . See J oh ns on v. Un it edSta te s, 3 40 F.3d12 19 , 12 28 n.8 (11 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (“ Arg um en ts no t ra is edin th e d is tri ctco urt ar e wai ve d.” ); Hu rle y v. Mo or e, 23 3 F .3d12 95 , 12 97 –9 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) ; Ny la ndv. Mo or e, 21 6 F .3d 12 64 , 12 65 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ); R edwin g C arri ers , Inc . v. Sar al an d Ap art m en ts , 94 58F.3 d 1 48 9, 1 51 1 n .30 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ); Walk er v . Jo ne s, 1 0 F .3d15 69 , 15 72 (11 th

Ci r. 19 94 ). VII I. Inco nc lu si on , th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t d en y in g t he habe as pe ti ti on is AFFIR MED ex cep t as itco nc ern s s ix Brad y cla im s. Th os e si x B rady cla im s ar e th e o ne s en um erat edsupr a at49 an d d is cu ss edin PartV. B., supr a. As t o t ho se si x B rady cla im s t he di st ric t co urt’s jud gm en t i s VACATED an d t he cas e is REMANDED forth e li m it edpu rp os e o f ha vi ng th e d is tri ctco urt co nduc t fo r th os e si x c la im s a c um

ul at iv e p reju di ce an al y si s as requi redby the Ky le s d eci si on , 51 4 U.S. at 4 34 , 11 5 S . Ct. at15 66 , andas d ire ct edby thi s o pi ni on . Depen di ng on th e ou tc om e o f th atan al y si s, the di st ric t co urt s ho ul d t he n e nt er a n ew jud gm en t ei th er gr an ti ng or d en y in g t he habe as pe ti ti on . AFFIR MED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, A ND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSI STENT W ITH THIS OPINION.

59